Hugo Chavez is dead. As a Venezuelan of my generation it’s a reality I find difficult to accept, or even wrap my head around. Chavez came to power in 1999—in other words, he and his revolutionary movement have dominated the national discourse for 14 out of my 20 years of life. I’ve known little else, and it’s difficult to imagine a Venezuela without Chavez.
For better or worse, Chavez was no ordinary president. He was a leader who fearlessly challenged the status quo through his charisma and strength of will, who successfully mobilized the popular masses behind a powerful, revolutionary message of equality and solidarity, and radically changed the course of Venezuela’s history forever.
I can’t doubt the positive legacy that Chavez leaves behind. Before his spectacularly unprecedented 1999 electoral victory, a relatively small elite controlled Venezuelan political life. The state was repressive, corrupt, and perpetuated an unequal and oppressive social structure that left little room for the voices of the marginalized. Although corruption unfortunately continues to plague the country’s governance, under Chavez’s leadership Venezuela has at the very least been able to achieve the most equal income distribution in all of Latin America.
Through his program of Socialism in the 21st Century, Chavez has been able to redistribute oil revenues to significantly improve the well-being of Venezuelans across social strata. The numbers speak for themselves—after gaining control of the oil industry in 2002, Chavez’s government was able to cut poverty in half, reduce extreme poverty by 70 percent, and decrease unemployment from 20 percent in 1999 to 7 percent in 2012.
Of course, these successes are framed by a dangerous dependence on oil revenues, rampant inflation, and an intentional alienation of domestic and foreign investment to diversify the economy. This is not to mention the gross inefficiency of government-administered services and, the Venezuelan opposition’s most common critique, a deadly upward trend in violence that is reflected in the third highest homicide rate in the hemisphere. These are flagrant oversights on the part of the Chavez administration.
Chavez, or someone like him, was necessary for Venezuela. A movement built around the empowerment of the disenfranchised was bound to spring up at some point given the deep social discontent that had simmered below the surface for decades before 1999. Chavez had many faults. He was a strongman, sometimes repressive of those who publicly stood against him, who had a flair for the dramatic. Yet, looking past his inflated ego, I credit him with waking up a nation that had become too comfortable with existing structures of power and oppression.
Chavez’s commitment to equality, solidarity, and the “protagonistic and participatory democracy” enshrined in the 1999 Constitution was manifested in his actions. That which I find most valuable in his legacy is Chavismo’s strengthening of the grassroots social movements focused on issues ranging from environmental conservation to gender equality, as well as his emphasis on establishing mechanisms for democratic governance on the most basic local level. The strengthening of so-called communal councils during his tenure is one of many examples.
Even so, his removal from office has been a long time coming. Chavez himself was beginning to grow complacent with Venezuela’s progress, when in fact Venezuela is far from the socialist utopia that the international left perceives it to be. In the last few years, he has ignored unacceptable levels of violence nationwide and failed to address the country’s crumbling economy, as the latest inflation rate rivals Argentina’s at 20.1 percent, and a scarcity of the most basic food staples like corn, flour, milk, and sugar remains persistent. Most seriously, it is the urban working class majority that suffers most from these challenges. I’m grateful to Chavez for igniting the revolution, but for the last few years it’s been time to pass along the torch to someone else.
At the next presidential election on Apr. 14, Venezuelans will choose between Nicolas Maduro, the former union leader and foreign minister that Chavez hand-picked as his successor before passing away, and Henrique Capriles Radonski, the dynamic opposition leader who amassed almost 45 percent of the popular vote in last October’s presidential elections. Re-elected as governor of Miranda, Venezuela’s second most populated state, last December, Capriles has been wildly popular not just among wealthier Venezuelans but among a large portion of the lower classes who have grown disillusioned with Chavismo.
Maduro has sworn before God and the sword of Simon Bolivar to continue the revolution, but is nowhere near as charismatic as his predecessor. In fact, he seems almost disingenuous, and has not hesitated to play dirty in engaging polarizing rhetoric to discredit the opposition, going so far as to call Capriles a fascist. On the other hand, for all of the social justice and unity Capriles the moderate claims to pursue, it is difficult to look beyond the right-wing, neoliberal interest groups that back his campaign.
However, as a very watered-down version of Chavez, lacking that characteristic spark, Maduro merely promises more of a discourse that has already begun to stagnate. Judging from his progressive track record as governor of Miranda, I am confident that Capriles is speaking earnestly when he commits to social justice, transparency, and democracy. And most importantly, even if the more right-wing interests that back him prove to be stronger than I foresee, I believe that the civil society empowered during these last 14 years will not allow a reversion to the Venezuela of before—because in the long run, it is ordinary Venezuelans that will ensure the peace, justice, and solidarity we seek in our country.
