The Venezuela Paradox: Why Chavez's Defeat is a Victory for Chavez and a Defeat for the Opposition

According to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, the defeat of Chavez's reforms "bodes well" for "freedom and liberty." If Perino means it bodes well for Chavez, and liberty and freedom under Chavez, she's right.

According to opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, Venezuela's vote yesterday was "about democracy or totalitarian socialism, and democracy won." But if Chavez were truly a totalitarian, would he have allowed a vote at all? And would he have conceded his defeat?

Ironically, Chavez's defeat is a victory for Chavez and a defeat for those who oppose him because it dramatically undermines the central claim of the opposition, and the U.S., that Chavez is a dictator who rigs elections.

Here in the U.S. of A, the claim that Chavez is a dictator, tyrant, etc. is widely and bipartisanly accepted by conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, who liberally throw around the "d" word when referring to Chavez.

It's not just Donald Rumsfeld who compares Chavez to Hitler, (a comparison, which, I imagine, would be rejected by most Holocaust survivors and people who risked their lives and were wounded fighting against the REAL Hitler). It's not just Geraldo Rivera who calls Chavez a "Communist Dictator," although in all seriousness, a dis from Geraldo is seen as a props by most people. Even the righteous (and foxy) Keith Olbermann clumps Castro's Cuba and Chavez's Venezuela together.

This common, slightly racist, fairly ignorant, and and very ahistorical view, which sees all of Latin American Left Leaning Leaders as one, and sees Castro and Chavez as identical (represented in these "funny because they are stupid" photos that are all over the "internets," and who is Jimmah Carter?), raises an important point: Castro is a dictator, while Chavez is not.
I don't care if you like Castro. He is still a dictator, even if you think he is fairer and more egalitarian than many elected leaders, even if you think human rights, economic rights are more respected in Cuba than in the United States, you have to acknowledge that, technically, Castro is a dictator. He came to power through a "coup" or "revolution", depending on your political outlook, and stayed in power ever since. There are local elections in Cuba, but none for the president's position. Thus Castro is, indeed, a dictator.

I don't care if you don't like Chavez. He is still not a dictator. This isn't to say that Chavez couldn't or wouldn't be a dictator. He did, in fact, try to come to power during a coup, which failed. Had his coup been successful, had he not come to power through (closely monitored and legal) elections, he would have been a dictator. But he didn't. And his legally elected government actually survived a U.S.-backed coup, which is a funny way for the Chavez-hating, rule of law-loving to express their commitment to democracy.

I do care that people label Chavez a dictator for a few reasons: 1) it dilutes the word and drains it of its meaning, just as throwing around Nazi and Hitler references does, 2) it is based on ideology and not fact, and 3) it is a scary sign of how things that are not true are absorbed through a kind of ignorant and lazy osmosis, without being checked or challenged, even by people who consider themselves enlightened, educated, liberals. What a waste of democracy and a free press that is.

Comments

[altohone]

The sad thing is that Katie is right, and the corporate media is plainly wrong.

Changing definitions for the sake of political spin in our media's conventional wisdom is just another tool of the establishment.

Acceptance by the public of the new definitions is scary. Bush's new definition of torture or Hillary's new defintion of "ending the war" while keeping 60,000 troops in Iraq are just two more examples that go unchallenged by our ethically challenged "journalists" and pundits.

[mattnetto]

It seems to me you are saying that Hugo is not a dictator because he did not come to power via a coup (didn't Hitler win an election to become Chancellor?) and because he just lost a referendum.

Wouldn't a dictator also try to limit opposition (Hugo did shut down the lone oppositional TV channel earlier this year) and try to solidify his base by having the masses rally around a scapegoat (el diablo, for instance)?

Another, and perhaps most important question, is this: do the people fear speaking out against him? I'd like to know. If so, all the others semantics are pointless.

Also, the main key about the referendum is, and I don't think you mention this, his loss meant that he can't have unlimited terms in office. Now this isn't stopping Putin from becoming a dictator, but it does make it trickier.

[Mrrar]

Wait.

Because he's constitutionally limited, that means he's not a dictator?

So, because in England in the 1500, the King was limited by the Magna Carta..

Or hey how about, because in England in the 1700s, the King was limited by the Parliament..

That means he wasn't a dictator?

Of course he (or she) was. Just because they are a limited dictator does not mean they aren't a dictator. What you call "Dilution" is actually an accurate an nuanced understanding of the word "Dictator."

What Chavez is not is a Tyrannical unlimited dictator.. But only a few people are stupid enough to think that... Nevertheless, the powers Chavez has are very similar to the Roman or Athenian grants of Dictorial power for temporary emergency reasons. It's what he's taken... And yay, he was stopped from becoming a dictator for life. But he's still a dictator.

[Boyaca]

Why do the very rich and powerfull love democracy so much? Because it is a form of government where they can rig the outcome of the elections. It favors those who can buy the biggest megaphone. In short democracy can allow the well positioned to con the poorest of the poor into voting against their best interests. It is not equal representation, it is not about fairness or free choices, it is about the rich and clever being able to con the public into supporting their agenda, no matter how harmfull to their interests or the interests of the country as a whole. Every knows that advertising works, and who can buy the best advertising?

[peterg76]

Chavez is not a dictator. It does seem that he would *like* to be a dictator, much the same way Little George would *like* to be an adult. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen.

Of course the real reason the media portrays Chavez as the enemy of democracy is so that people don't look too closely of the Venezuelan example, because they then might remember what real democracy actually is.

[WorkingClass]

Chavez cannot be a communist dictator because he is not a communist and he is not a dictator. The American sheeple believe this absurdity because it has been drummed into them by their corporate masters.

[sabocat]

Thank you for at least scratching the surface and stating the obvious. Unfortunately, the reflexive disinformation of the mainstream media vis-a-vis Venezuela will continue. I have a yardstick for such drivel. The more the corporate media demonizes a leader and movement in Latin America, the more good it is doing for the poor. We call that the threat of a good example, which the corporatocracy fears will spread. Thus the need to demonize and distort.

BTW, don't mean to equivocate, but given the totalitarian power grab of Batista, with the blessing of the US and the mafia, what choice did Fidel have but to overthrow the regime? And what choice do they have now, given the unrelenting hostility of the US elite and embargo against the Cuban regime? An embargo, which, by the way, has been repeatedly voted down in the UN for 19 years running.

[retarius]

Democracy is over-rated. It can't solve the major problem that the world faces...climate change...or poverty for that matter! Politicians are unable to go to their electorates and ask for sacrifice...they get turfed out. Like all things, democracy has had its day...nothing lasts forever...nice while it lasted, now it's time for a change.
Likewise Chavez and Putin have become an obsession with the American political class...thye are extremely popular with most of their electorates...they were elected with handsome majorities (better than the crowd in the White House now)...
Chavez has used his country's oil wealth to offer some help to the poor...that action is a crime in America (which is why the US sponsored a coup to try to oust him)....I mean, how dare Chavez use Venezuela's oil to help poor people?...doesn't he know that oil is only supposed to feather the nests of the already extremely rich...
The problem with Chavez and why he needs to be demonized is that he may just become a role model for other resource rich countries....imagine if the commodity produces started electing people who actually redistributed the countries wealth by using the wealth from their oil, gas, silver, gold, diamonds, uranium, tin and so on to help the poorer citizens of their respective countries? Well the big losers would be the multi-nationals that are raping these countries...and we can't risk having their shareholders hurt can we? that wouldn't be democratic, would it?

[TorpedoTommy]

Very well written.
Let's all join the fight against stupid analogies and wrong labellings.

Plus 'totalitarian socialism' is an oxymoron. In an egalitarian society nobody can have political privileges, thus the term is a contradictio in adjecto.
That is why it is difficult to characterize the soviet-union and the other warsaw-pact'-states.
Because they have clearly not been communist (which they also never claimed to be) but also not been socialist (which they claimed to be) in a true sense of the word, a lot of people refer to them as totalitarian dicatorships. That I reject, because this characterization doesn't reflect (and so has no analytical value) the question of private ownership vs. society/state/Kolchose- owned property.
And thus likens 'communism' with fascism which is pure and evil propaganda.

Sorry got carried away ... good blog!