Could Hugo Chavez be elected in any European country?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If not, I find it rather ironic that he did get elected in a way more socially conservative country. If not, that pretty much disproves the idiotic view of American conservatives like dazzleman that Europe is full of people so far left that people like Barbara Boxer would be conservatives there and everyone is seethingly anti-American.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Camp ex-military types that once led coups do not win elections here.

[MODU]

Depends on which Hugo you're looking at.  He can be very charismatic, which many Western nations look for in a leader.  As far as qualifications though, I think he would lose out to a career politician easily.  Maybe in an Eastern European country where the image of a strong populist is wanted, but not much beyond that.

[Jake]

Extremely doubtful. As Al says, Euros aren't much interested in former army officers who have led coups against the government.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Camp ex-military types that once led coups do not win elections here.

True. Also his skin color could be a problem in most countries if he were running for president/prime minister. (Probably not in UK, maybe not in France, Benelux, Scandinavia, but definitely in all East European countries.)

I have realized before that any European nation has never have had 'colored' head of state. Seems more than natural though.

Any ideas which nation will first get a non-white head of state?   

[YoMartin]

If not, I find it rather ironic that he did get elected in a way more socially conservative country.

Chavez is not socially libertarian. He has conservative views on gays, and even authoritarian ones on the freedom of press. I guess Berlusconi is not that different. Haider was not far away from winning elections in Austria, and he`s definitely worse than Chavez (with less electoral success, I would add Bossi, Le Pen, Blocher, Vlaams Blok, etc.). A former Franco minister like Fraga Iribarne has ruled Galicia until last year. Former communists have won elections in Eastern Europe. A war criminal won an election in Israel (it`s not Europe geographically, but it is culturally... and in football they play within UEFA). So, even if certain aspects of Chavez´s background would serious damage his electability in Europe, I guess his ideas could resonate with certain people there. Add to that the fact that the previous political elite was completely inept and corrupt, and that after his first election he had the luck of this huge rise in oil prices, and that explains his popularity.

[ag]

There is one European country that has elected a Chavez-type character, and he still rulls it in a chavista style. It is Belarus - Lukashenka is a Chavez twin, albeit only a reserve major without a coup under his belt before being elected.  In fact, since Lukashenka has been in power longer, we might say that Chavez is a lukashista .

In principle, somebody Chavez-like could be elected in some of the former Soviet states or in the Balkans. That is, pretty much, it.  In fact, though some European leaders might be closet chavistas (Berlusconi comes to mind), stable European environment means that they still have to be accountable to parliaments, courts, public opinion, EU etc. If a European leader tried a chavista-style self-coup, replacing the existing institutions with the fakes of his making, he'd be out of office - and, probably, out of the continent or in prison - within months, if not days.

[YoMartin]

Ag: My opinion of Chavez is extremely negative, but I don´t agree that the constitutional reform was a self-coup. We´ll just have to accept that he´s a democratic and legal president, even if some of his actions were in the edge of breaking the law. If Chavez is what (a majority of) Venezuelans want, winning many reasonably free and fair elections, we can´t speak of a self-coup. It was a coup what he attempted in the mid 90´s, and it was a coup what was attempted against him in 2002, but his administration, as I (and most foreing observers, OEA, etc.) see it, is democratic.

That being said, I think it´s too much to compare Chavez with a notorious dictator like Lukashenko...

[TX_1824]

If not, I find it rather ironic that he did get elected in a way more socially conservative country.

That may be the case, but wouldn't you agree that South Americans tend to be more socialist and anti-property rights?

[ag]

Ag: My opinion of Chavez is extremely negative, but I don´t agree that the constitutional reform was a self-coup. We´ll just have to accept that he´s a democratic and legal president, even if some of his actions were in the edge of breaking the law. If Chavez is what (a majority of) Venezuelans want, winning many reasonably free and fair elections, we can´t speak of a self-coup. It was a coup what he attempted in the mid 90´s, and it was a coup what was attempted against him in 2002, but his administration, as I (and most foreing observers, OEA, etc.) see it, is democratic.

That being said, I think it´s too much to compare Chavez with a notorious dictator like Lukashenko...

What Chavez did in Venezuela might have been democratic (in the sense of being supported by the majority of the population), but was, should we say it mildly, "extra-constitutional", and, hence the "self-coup" designation applies (as it did to similar behavior by Fujimori). In no modern Western European country I can imagine something like this happening.

By the way, Lukashenka is no more dictator than Chavez. He was originally elected in a democratic election, where he defeated then-powers-that-be (Vyachislav Kebich, then-PM, was, clearly, the government-supported candidate, and Lukashenka was an insurgent upstart, running against the unpopular government). He has since regularly been re-elected, running in contested elections, with fairly serious opponents (the next election is this month, and there is an anti-Lukashenka candidate on the ballot).  While the elections have not recently been fair, there are reasons to believe that in all of them majority of people did vote for him, and, in fact, would have voted for him even in a fairer setting (the same is true of Chavez, isn't it?). Of course, Lukashenka has also pushed through - extra-legally, like Chavez - laws stacking the field in his favor (again, like Chavez).  In fact, unlike Chavez, Lukashenka has never participated in any military coup attempt: he first came to public attention as a chairman of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee (and he was elected to that parliament). Everything he's done has been sanctified with votes and has been agreed to by a majority of his compatriots (what it says about his compatriots is another matter).

While a few of Lukashenka's opponents have been disappeared, etc., the number is, I believe, in low double digits, and this has only started fairly recently. Likewise, while the freedom of the press has bee severely curtailed, the process was gradual, and the greater restrictiveness of Belarus, mainly, reflects the longer time that Lukashenka has spent in power. 

To sum up, rather than being a horrid dictatorship, Luksshenka's Belarus is more of a slightly more developed and oilless version of Chavez's Venezuela. The reason he seems so bad is the comparison: there are simply more truly democratic and stable states in Lukashenka's hood, than there are in Chavez's.

PS of course, nothing I've written here should be taken as a defense of the Belorussian regime, wich I heartily despise.

[YoMartin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, here´s where we disagree. Every legal change has been made within the constitutional procedures (whether we like them or not, that´s different). My only doubts would be the in last parliamentary elections, but, again, foreign observers have stated they were clean. They´re the only "kind of impartial" people around there, so I trust what they say.

Fujimori closed Congress, that´s completely different. Chavez´s opponents have DECIDED not to run, in order to undermine his legitimacy.

Being in the opposition in Belarus means you could be killed. That´s not the situation in Venezuela...

PS: this isn´t a defense of Chavez, either.

[ag]

If not, I find it rather ironic that he did get elected in a way more socially conservative country.

That may be the case, but wouldn't you agree that South Americans tend to be more socialist and anti-property rights?

Not really. If anything, US would fit your definition of being "more sociallist" on many counts. The greater popularity of hardcore leftists in Latin America reflects a greater degree of inequality than in the US. In many Latin American countries the government controls a smaller proportion of the economy than the US government does up North, and taxes, generally, are much higher in the US than they are in Latin America (in Mexico the government barely collects 10-11% of the GDP in taxes; even though I am, probably, among the highest-taxed indidviduals in the country - being a well-paid professional in the highest tax bracket and no unearned income, or income from outside Mexico that could be hidden or deducted - I pay slightly less in income taxes than I would have paid in the US; most people pay far less). The social services are also usually better in the US.

As for property rights, the problem in Latin America is that they are frequently not well-defined, not that the government undermines them deliberately. In fact, eminent domain takings are much more difficult in Mexico than in the US, and much likelier to be overturned by courts when attempted. On the other hands, courts also are much more likely to rule in your favor in a dispute with, say, a bank - and even if they don't, they'd take much longer time than they would have in the US, meaning that it is hard to use your property as a colateral (since banks know you could always sue and delay the repocession by many years). Likewise, even if you purchase something in good faith, it is much likelier than in the US that what you pay for is not really yours (if, for instance, it turns out that the previous owner didn't get all the paperwork done right when he did it 20 years previous, making it possible for heirs of his predecessor to sue you now).

[ag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, here´s where we disagree. Every legal change has been made within the constitutional procedures (whether we like them or not, that´s different). My only doubts would be the in last parliamentary elections, but, again, foreign observers have stated they were clean. They´re the only "kind of impartial" people around there, so I trust what they say.

Fujimori closed Congress, that´s completely different. Chavez´s opponents have DECIDED not to run, in order to undermine his legitimacy.

Being in the opposition in Belarus means you could be killed. That´s not the situation in Venezuela...

PS: this isn´t a defense of Chavez, either.

If I remember it correctly, the adoption of the current constitution in Venezuela did not follow exact procedures forseen in the previous one (there was also some hanky-panky with the courts back then, unless I am wrong). While it is true, the changes was done by an elected body and adopted in a fairly legitimate referendum, the same is true of all current Belorussian laws, however unfair, undemocratic and idiotic. In fact, Lukashenka might have been more "legally sound" than Chavez, not less.

As for being killed - until very recently, that wasn't true in Belarus either, and it is still fairly exceptional. In fact, even now the vast majority of oppositionists are not risking anything more than 15-day incarceration for "minor hooliganism" and a sound beating by police goons if they try to demonstrate (police brutality is a common problem in the former USSR, including less undemocratic regimes), nothing if they mostly keep quiet. How different is this from Venezuela?  Of course, things are still getting worse - as they are in Venezuela. The fact that Belarus has progressed somewhat more reflects the greater entrenchment of the regime and the generally more docile nature of Belorussian populace (and the fact that Belarus never developed an "middle class" that could protest - almost all Belorussian protests are by small groups of intellectuals and students). 5 years back things were slightly better - more like Venezuela now.

[Democratic Hawk]

Camp ex-military types that once led coups do not win elections here.

[WMS]

Ag, I would like to express my appreciation of your comparative analysis of Venezuela and Belarus. I now have my answer as to what Venezuela will be like in the future...

[minionofmidas]

I would have said "of course not", but then I thought of Silvio Berlusconi. I change my answer to, "only in very exceptional situations in which the old political leet is totally delegitimized, and there's a vacuum because people need somebody to vote for. If that happened though, that person could certainly be startlingly successful, and for a long time. Which, come to think of it, is also a good description of the causes of Chavez' initial rise in Venezuela, although there's been a massive departure since.

Actually, on a smaller scale, Jörg Haider or Pim Fortuyn or (even smaller) Ronald Schill are somewhat Chavist characters too, again with similar origins.

[YoMartin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Killings and incarcerations to members of the opposition, even if rare, are what separate regimes where basic civil liberties exist from those where they don`t. Those rights don`t exist in Belarus, and they do exist in Venezuela. Hundreds of thousands attend demonstrations against Chavez, and they even organized a recall against him. I`m not aware of any killings or beatings to those people. They are different regimes. As I see it, Venezuela could be compared to other liberal democracies, while Belarus should be compared to other authoritarian regimes.

I also think Haider et alii are worse than Chavez.

[ag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Killings and incarcerations to members of the opposition, even if rare, are what separate regimes where basic civil liberties exist from those where they don`t. Those rights don`t exist in Belarus, and they do exist in Venezuela. Hundreds of thousands attend demonstrations against Chavez, and they even organized a recall against him. I`m not aware of any killings or beatings to those people. They are different regimes. As I see it, Venezuela could be compared to other liberal democracies, while Belarus should be compared to other authoritarian regimes.

I also think Haider et alii are worse than Chavez.

Lukashenko came to power 4 years before Chavez, and he came to power in an extremely docile country, which hasn't known major demonstrations even during the Soviet break up. While in the last few years his regime has been becoming outright cruel, he does not really need it, and he did not really use "killings and incarcerations" until quite recently. There are no mass incarcerations of is opponents even now - and short administrative arrests for 15 days to a month after an unsanction demonstration occur in less oppressive countries as well. Nor has Chavez been entirely unwilling to use force and courts against his opponents - or why are so many of them increasingly abroad, fighting extradition requests?

To sum up: Chavez's regime is, still, somewhat less oppressive than Lukashenka's, but I fail to see the major difference, and whatever difference there is is attributable to a) lesser tenure of the regime in Venezuela - that is, a lot of the comparisons are easier if we compare Lukashenka 4 years ago and Chavez today; and b) presence of an actually popular opposition in Venezuela (while it is not a majority, there is a sizeable class of population that hates Chavez; the popular opposition to Lukashenka is confined to some intellectuals, students, and other marginal characters that together form a remarkably small minority in Belarus). In fact, Belarus would appear much less free even without Lukashenka: it never developed a true civil society, free media, etc. that somewhat constrained Chavez in his early years (though they progressively constrain him less). Even under the exemplary democrat Shushkevich (the first post-independence head of state, who meekly tolerated his own ouster by the Parliament and has long been forgotten) Belarus never really quacked like a democracy.

So, the countries are indeed different, but the personalities, actions, and even political philosophies of the two presidents are remarkably similar.

[minionofmidas]

I also think Haider et alii are worse than Chavez.

Yeah, but there are some definite parallels. All silly populists (European sense), all quite camp as Al likes to call Chavez...

[YoMartin]

Well, we´re not going to agree on this one. I see a fundamental difference in the nature of both regimes. Maybe Chavez would like to be a dictator like Lukashenko (maybe Bush would like it too, who knows what people "really" want?), but at the end of the day I can`t find any arguments to compare the situation in Venezuela to that in Belarus. I think Chavez is terribly incompetent, but it`s up to the Venezuelans to decide that, and so far they`ve chosen to support him.

As I see it, the "European Chavez" would be Berlusconi, who even has more control over the press than Chavez. Haider`s main xenophobic ideas don`t appear in Chavez`s "ideology", although he`s ultra-nationalist too. Maybe it`s the difference between a developed country`s brand of nationalism and a third world version.

[minionofmidas]

As I see it, the "European Chavez" would be Berlusconi, who even has more control over the press than Chavez. Haider`s main xenophobic ideas don`t appear in Chavez`s "ideology", although he`s ultra-nationalist too. Maybe it`s the difference between a developed country`s brand of nationalism and a third world version.

It's partly a question of what sells... and remember that Haider is from Carinthia, and that his father's name was Haiduska.

[WMS]

Well, we´re not going to agree on this one. I see a fundamental difference in the nature of both regimes. Maybe Chavez would like to be a dictator like Lukashenko (maybe Bush would like it too, who knows what people "really" want?), but at the end of the day I can`t find any arguments to compare the situation in Venezuela to that in Belarus. I think Chavez is terribly incompetent, but it`s up to the Venezuelans to decide that, and so far they`ve chosen to support him.

As I see it, the "European Chavez" would be Berlusconi, who even has more control over the press than Chavez. Haider`s main xenophobic ideas don`t appear in Chavez`s "ideology", although he`s ultra-nationalist too. Maybe it`s the difference between a developed country`s brand of nationalism and a third world version.

I'm with ag, of course.

Two words for you, YoMartin: "Bolivarian Circles". Or have you forgotten their killings of opposition demonstrators in 2002 that sparked the coup attempt?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

no. He's too conservative.

[YoMartin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also held that as true for a while, but later investigations couldn´t determine clearly the connection between those guys who appear shooting in the video and the Chavez administration. I´m absolutely sure there are authoritarian and even violent chavistas, but, as I said, the Venezuelan regime is democratic. Other governments in the region do have para-legal organizations; even Spain had one a few years ago. I don´t think there is such an organization in Venezuela (the Círculos are almost dismantled now, I believe). And, come on, the coup attempt was planned and organized well before that.

PS: it´s the first time I´m in the pro-Chavez side of any discussion. It´s disturbing...

[WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also held that as true for a while, but later investigations couldn´t determine clearly the connection between those guys who appear shooting in the video and the Chavez administration. I´m absolutely sure there are authoritarian and even violent chavistas, but, as I said, the Venezuelan regime is democratic. Other governments in the region do have para-legal organizations; even Spain had one a few years ago. I don´t think there is such an organization in Venezuela (the Círculos are almost dismantled now, I believe). And, come on, the coup attempt was planned and organized well before that.

PS: it´s the first time I´m in the pro-Chavez side of any discussion. It´s disturbing...

"Later investigations" I'm a bit suspicious about, in truth

Given Chavez stuffing his country full of Cuban death squads paramilitaries "volunteers", especially his infiltration and subversion of the Venezuelan military by said members, he doesn't need the Circulos anymore, because they're all 'legitimate' now.

If that was the best the plotters could pull off, that is one inept group of people. It fits an ad hoc attempt much better...and no, it was not "planned and instigated by the U.S.!!!one!!11!1" How has it been described to me...even on their worst day, the CIA isn't that inept. Now, we did, at some level (probably the lower levels of State and Defense and the intel agencies) probably hear of something in the works before it happened and said nothing...although given Chavez's unyielding hostility, why would we warn him of his own damn country's problems?

And, yes, you should be disturbed! I suspect it's that Latin American hyper-nationalist anti-Yankee influence coming to the surface that makes you side with Chavez