Amidst the avalanche of recent op/ed pieces highlighting Hugo Chavez’ “defeat” in Sunday’s constitutional referendum (exhibits A, B, C, D); two specific articles have caught our attention. Whether you agree with them or not, they analyze the situation from different angles and are a relief from so many articles that pretty much sound the same.Roger Cohen’s piece in Thursday’s New York Times praises the referendum and its results as the epitome of democracy. The crux of Cohen’s argument is not Chavez himself but how the U.S. could learn from the referendum:
Venezuela’s democratic credentials are robust for Latin America — democracy has held since 1958 — but pale by U.S. standards. Yet there was a directness, meaningfulness and civic responsibility about the proceedings that make the early running in the American election look pitiful.
Bill Clinton’s latest whining about press coverage of his wife, Mitt Romney’s latest broadside on immigration, the various spins of the Iran intelligence volte-face, and the sterile who’s-got-more-God competition between candidates, look like the machinations of a disoriented power.
The United States needs a new beginning. It cannot lie in the Tudor-Stuart-like alternation of the Bush-Clinton dynasties, nor in the macho militarism of Republicans who see war without end. It has to involve a fresh face that will reconcile the country with itself and the world, get over divisions — internal and external — and speak with honesty about American glory and shame.
Leon Krauze’s very brief essay in PostGlobal blasted Chavez but expressed hope that moderate leftists can benefit from the referendum’s outcome:
More than a battle between left and right, Latin America has long been immersed in a struggle between chavismo, or old-fashioned populism, and chilenismo, or forward-looking, open social democracies. As several of the region’s intellectuals have pointed out, chavismo has been winning the fight mostly due to its Venezuelan patron saint’s oil-enriched coffers and the region’s weird fascination with revolutionary leaders – our infatuation with “Che-chic”, if you will. My hope is that Chavez’s loss – and his recent, demented outbursts against King Juan Carlos and Colombia’s president Uribe – will begin to expose the man for what he really is: a populist narcissist.
That could start some sort of domino-effect. Nothing could benefit Latin America’s transition more than for the region as a whole to have a solid, modern left.
What do you think?
Sources- New York Times, PostGlobal, International Herald Tribune, Economist.com, Newsday.com, boston.com
Image- BBC News (Venezuelan wait in line to vote during Sunday’s constitutional referendum)
4 comments:
"Demented outbursts against King Juan Carlos and Colombia’s president Uribe"
Well, first off KING Juan Carlos was freaking out because Chavez called Aznar exactly what he is, a fascist (being a member of various parties over the years formed by members of the Franco regime).
And President Uribe? Please, only "Napoleon complex" is a better descriptor than "demented" for that little strong man.
Juan Carlos was freaking out, Axe, because Chavez spoke for 21 minutes when he was only allotted 5 minutes when it was his turn, then decided to heckle Zapata during his 5 minutes. Giving Chavez props? Are you serious??
I agree with both articles.
First, the US can definetly benefit from taking note to how democracy has worked in Venezuela despite Chavez. Democracy is not an American phenomenom. The US has simply been able to exploit the citizenry (hold on chavistas) to push agendas that really have little or no relevance to actual issues at hand (see Karl Rove).
And second, Chavez is a populist to the fullest extent of the word. Without the oil money there would be no Chavez. Other Latin American leaders trying to follow suit will essentially become Chavez puppets because they will depend on Chavez. True moderate leftists have been able to work from within the system and have made strides. You may call Lula and Chilean presidents in the recent past sell outs but they've been able to do what populists claim to do without compromising their ideals or goals which last I checked have worked out. Same can go for movements is Uruguay and Paraguay.
You're right Fabio, we should all bow down before a KING who owes his position to a GENOCIDAL FASCIST.
Not to mention a former prime minister who supported a coup against a democratically elected president of a sovereign nation and former colony.
Post a Comment