Venezuela: It’s Complicated

When Juan Guaidó, the previously unknown leader of Venezuela’s legislature, invoked a constitutional clause to declare himself president, he set off an international firestorm. Almost immediately, American Vice President Mike Pence called sitting president Nicolás Maduro “a dictator with no legitimate claim to power” and affirmed American support for Guaidó. The last months have seen tens of thousands of Venezuelans rally throughout the country, pitting Guaidó’s supporters against Maduro loyalists. All this is occurring against the backdrop of one of the worst humanitarian crises in the region’s history. Over three million people have fled the country to escape violence and to access affordable food and vital medicine. My family’s ties to Venezuela have always made the situation especially poignant. Growing up I imagined a conflict with clear ‘good’ and ‘bad’ actors. Over the years, learning more about Venezuelan history and society has forced me to confront a far more nuanced reality, one that is virtually unrepresented in American political discourse.

Understanding what is happening in Venezuela requires understanding the career of Chavez, Maduro’s late predecessor whose “Chavismo” movement has dominated Venezuelan politics since the late 1990s. Chavez first captured the public imagination in 1992 when he led fellow military officers in an unsuccessful coup. After being pardoned and released from jail, Chavez returned to the political arena and in 1998 won the presidency in a landslide declared a “Bolivarian Revolution.” His unapologetic populism, which would crystallize into socialism, and explicit commitment to integrating marginalized communities into the democratic process energized Venezuelans, who were exhausted with the corrupt, pro-business political establishment. Even many members of my grandfather’s relatively well-off family voted for Chavez, hoping that his movement would usher in an era of dynamic and just governance.

With Chavez in office, the government rerouted state resources into expansive welfare programs. Investments in public health and education pulled millions out of poverty. According to the World Bank, the percentage of people living in poverty fell from 56 percent in 1997 to 31 percent by 2001. The number of practicing physicians rose from under 2,000 to over 20,000. Millions of poor Venezuelans invested time in government-funded literacy programs. In addition to his anti-poverty measures, Chavez renewed belief in government. In 2006, the Chilean polling firm Latinobarometro found that Venezuelans expressed more satisfaction with their democracy than any other Latin American country except for Uruguay. That same poll found that 56 percent of Venezuelans believed their local elections to be “clean” versus a regional average of 41 percent. Restoring faith in government is an underappreciated legacy of the Chavista government. Carlos Andrés Perez, the president Chavez tried to oust in 1992, was removed from office and arrested in a massive embezzlement scandal. Andrés Perez had already been unpopular for enacting cuts to public spending and using the military to violently suppress protests in Caracas, killing between 276 (the official figure) and 3,000 protestors. Fundamentally changing how Venezuelans engaged with government was a high point of Chavez’s revolution.

Following reelection in 2001, Chavez took advantage of his popularity to radicalize the government’s agenda. A presidential decree broke up large commercial farms and turned them over to peasant cooperatives. The government expropriated the assets of various foreign oil companies, which were soon put under the control of political appointees. Steel, telecommunications, and utilities were all nationalized through similar processes. State operators proved inept and corrupt. Venezuela soon began to suffer from shortages of water, food, and power.

As dissent grew, Chavez took measures to consolidate his power. In 2002 and 2003, oil industry workers went on strike to protest Chavista mismanagement and were met with mass firings. As production collapsed in multiple sectors of the economy, spiking oil prices and predatory loans from China, allowed the government to hide from reality by pumping money into subsidized imports to make up for domestic shortages. When oil prices fell after Chavez’s death, Venezuela’s GDP plummeted and hyperinflation ran rampant, leaving the country in debt without an escape route.

The most disappointing aspect of the Bolivarian Revolution might be its failure to stamp out the systemic corruption of the political class that Chavismo sought to replace. The state-owned oil company (PDSVA) simply stopped publishing financial statements. Other state-run industries were managed in similarly opaque ways by unaccountable government-appointed executives. Starting in the mid-2000s, billions of dollars disappeared from state coffers. A Cato Institute study found corrupt practices “exploding” in every level of government. Mismanagement of the PDSVA was such that the company sometimes produced nearly 50% below capacity. Mass firings and the promotion of Chavez allies to key positions drained the company of capable employees while a lack of oversight empowered executives to loot the company.

Journalist Juan Carlos Zapata coined the term “boliburgesía” to describe this rising class of oligarchs allied with the Chavez regime. The Chavez and Maduro families, for example, are believed to have amassed considerable wealth in the form of land, cars, and even gold. Former executives of state-run companies led lavish lifestyles, including multi-million dollar homes in Florida at the expense of Venezuelans. While these new elites got rich from corrupt business practices, an incomprehensible currency-exchange system gave cover for other government and military officials to make small fortunes on the currency black market.

In the United States, pundits and politicians have been fighting ideological wars over Venezuela for years. These debates resemble the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding the Cuban revolution. In 2005, Televangelist Pat Robertson even called for Chavez’s assassination on his TV show. That comment was an extreme case. More often, right-wing American politicians and journalists use Venezuela as a cudgel to kill enthusiasm for progressive policies. In addition to the constant White House messaging, Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis claimed that his progressive opponent, Andrew Gillum, wanted “to turn Florida into Venezuela”. The Republican National Committee sent out a fundraising email last summer describing then congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “mini-Maduro”. It is not just politicians looking to score electoral points. Recent essays from columnists like the National Review’s Victor Hansen or the New York Times’ Brett Stephens exemplify how American conservatives conflate their political opponents with the failed revolutionaries in Venezuela. Yet claiming that investment in public healthcare and education or raising the minimum wage have brought Venezuela to its knees ignores the corruption and mismanagement that have characterized the last eighteen years. Ironically, these criticisms of Chavez and Maduro actually let them off easy. Instead of holding the leaders to account, Conservative critics imply that they were just misguided passengers, swept away in the inevitable failures of socialist and progressive policies. The attacks seem to be a strategic choice to obscure policy debates in the United States where progressives have nothing to do with the situation in Venezuela today.

To be clear, the White House’s interest in Venezuela does not stem from an affinity for democracy or the Venezuelan people. The United States provides military aid to dozens of illiberal regimes around the world. Given Venezuela’s lucrative development potential, it is hard to imagine that American oil firms are not involved in the administration’s decision-making process. Like the politicians using the socialist angle for political gain, these corporations have a vested interest in shaping public opinion on Venezuela.

Initially, the Bolivarian revolution represented a David-and-Goliath struggle between the exploited masses of the global south versus imperialist interests of the north. When Chavez moved toward authoritarianism, many of his international supporters began to distance themselves, yet fears of a return to imperialism still informs the position of the American left. American sanctions—particularly those targeting PDSVA—have compounded the problems of the Venezuelans people. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has continued to impose new sanctions on the PDVSA which will almost certainly wreak further havoc by constricting the government’s ability to subsidize food and fuel. Most public statements from politicians on the American left have treaded a cautious line between condemning Maduro’s repressive rule and avoiding endorsements of American intervention. Congresswomen Ilan Omar, Tulsi Gabbard, and Congressman Ro Khanna have condemned Maduro’s repressive tactics while warning against supporting American involvement in regime change. Their concerns are warranted, given the US’s history of bloody, non-democratic interventions in Latin America. As recently as 2002, an unsuccessful coup backed by the Bush administration strengthened Chavez’s hand and radicalized his rhetoric. Still, it is possible to oppose intervention without legitimizing a corrupt regime that has dropped most pretenses of democracy.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]A transition of power should not be shaped by rigid ideologies or business interests. Instead, it should be driven by the principles of de-escalation and self-determination for Venezuelans.[/su_pullquote]I remember being at a metro station returning from school when I heard Chavez had died. I celebrated it without thinking twice. To me, Chavez was the reason my grandfather would not return to Venezuela. I blamed him for my extended family’s dispersal from Venezuela to Spain, Mexico, Panama, and the United States. I saw Chavez as the cause of the catastrophe. After learning more of Venezuela’s history, I understand that acknowledging many Venezuelans experienced Chavismo in very different ways is critical. His lasting popularity shows that he was speaking to real, entrenched injustices. In American politics, those who speak loudest on Venezuela, like Governor DeSantis, Senator Marco Rubio, and Trump advisor Mauricio Claver-Carone, represent the conservative-skewed diasporas of Venezuela and Cuba which, for the most part, detest Chavez and his legacy. Although Maduro has none of Chavez’s charisma or revolutionary reputation, he still heads a vast patronage network in Venezuela. His position entails loyalty from a significant portion of the population, including crucial members of the military. While international recognition may have burnished Guaidó’s legitimacy in the diaspora, further intervention might serve to undermine his legitimacy with millions who remain skeptical of American interference. A transition of power should not be shaped by rigid ideologies or business interests. Instead, it should be driven by the principles of de-escalation and self-determination for Venezuelans. When watching events unfold in Venezuela, keep in mind the agendas that are trying to pitch particular perspectives and policy prescriptions.

Rohan Palacios ’21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rpalacios@wustl.edu.