This is, at first sight, and then throughout, an article of clichés.
It fails to surprise me that Peter Hitchens {a man not to be confused with his better known and far more intelligent but equally controversial brother under any circumstances} recently wrote a piece on Chavez that consisted of the crude hack-job which has proven ubiquitous on the right. His wielding of the machete is more elegant than most but still presents moments of jaw-dropping idiocy, for instance:
Revenge is already being prepared. Chavez is now demanding that the universities drop their entrance examinations so that he can pack them with young half-educated supporters who can elbow aside Geraldine and her liberty-loving friends.
he alleges, as if there is no other reason at all for such a policy being brought into place in a developing country. He does have some valid points, chiefly the worrying treatment of anti-Chavez protesters by the police. But to connect these instantly with the man himself seems unwise given that in our own nation there was an innocent man gunned down for boarding an underground train. By raising this I intend not to indicate that there are no grounds for Hitchens raising the point but rather that overly brutal policing is seemingly ubiquitous through the world {as also demonstrated by the tendency of American police to use pepper spray upon peaceful protesters until this was outlawed by court} rather than something which is a feature of any “autocracy”.
Indeed the liberal usage of the word “autocratic” is another hackneyed feature of his criticism. As ever though, evidence is thin on the ground. Hitchens, like all in his position, attempts to raise the removal of a programme highly critical of Chavez from terrestrial airwaves. Given the support that the aforesaid channel gave a violent coup staged by militant rightist forces to depose Chavez and then no coverage to the simply immense protests in the wake and in absolute action to this move I should perhaps make another comparison to Britain, this one a conjecture of fantasy. If Channel 4 had, as I personally suspect it might, given full and vocal support to a Marxist coup against Gordon Brown and then had pretended that no dissent in the country over the issue had occurred would Hitchens really imagine Brown to be acting out of bounds if he forced it to function solely as a satellite, cable and digital channel from then onwards?
Indeed, if anything it is remarkable that the network was permitted to remain on publically accessible airwaves from 2002 until over half a decade later.
Unfortunately the unoriginality is seemingly fathomless, entirely in disregard of the faded nature of over-used cards never worth much to start with. He accuses Chavez of
Plotting what was effectively a coup on the constitution
yet if it truly was one Chavez surely has learnt from past experience {both while he was planning them and when victim}. This time around rather than making a military effort to seize control he staged a referendum. Truly dastardly, isn’t it? Now if Hitchens considers the Venezuelan people to be inadequate judges of the conditions their nation faces then he should say so, but as it is he has used a highly intellectually dishonest tactic by associated the forced seizure of power to an attempt by a democratically elected president to obtain a democratic mandate upon the conditions under which Venezuela would function as a democracy.
There is an argument against this, one which does not rely upon distortion and spin. Instead Peter writes in a fashion that he is aware his American audience will respond to with a vigorous knee-jerk {despite the fact that it is highly likely a substantial number of the readers supported Bush’s attempts to amend the American one over gay marriage in what would have amounted to a far less democratic manner, had he had the 2/3s of both houses of Congress required}. What makes his failure especially galling is that in the country he tends to operate there is no written constitution at all. If he truly considers a constitution to be worthwhile and worth adhering to rigidly and making no efforts to amend I consider it peculiar that I have no recollection of him writing an article advocating we create a written document outlining the rights inalienable to us as Queen’s subjects.
Indeed the powers of Parliament are entirely unrestrained owing to the potency of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which states that no government in power may make laws incapable of being over-ridden by those that follow. Given that the executive has a vigorous grasp over self-interest {the quantity of MPs willing to oppose important bills that will lose them their current jobs in government or/and deny them any chance at future positions is not negligible but generally insubstantial} and the First Past the Post electoral system tends to ensure that there are no minority governments in parliament we are effectively left with an executive capable of doing as it pleases, with Blair only prevented from exerting his will over the country once in his ten year tenure. By no means does this mean that Hitchens’ definition of autocracy is rationally bankrupt, but I would suggest that he start raging about the shoddy state of our means of government a little more at home given how abhorrent he appears to find democratic governments having excessive power abroad.
Presumably Peter Hitchens’ concern for the liberty of the Venezuelan people and longing to protect them from themselves is greater than for his own countryman.
His intellectually insubstantial rant is in places unintentionally hilarious:
If there were any justice, Chavez would long ago have been forced from office by bankruptcy. His economic management is wasteful and sloppy and involves a great deal of expensive largesse to the poor in return for their votes,
In my piece on Pragmatic Socialism I suggested that the simple fact that it works justifies its usage where perhaps some more intellectual considerations of it do not. I think that upon some levels Hitchens accepts that Venezuela has made great progress but unfortunately he has shied away from this. He rails that it is unjust for somebody who performs the largesse of offering the basic facilities such as a solid education and healthcare along with less than extreme redistribution of wealth remain in office. This is perhaps acceptable on some ideological levels but the reality of the matter is that Chavez remains immensely and nearly overwhelmingly popular amongst the impoverished masses that make up the vast majority of Venezuela.
This is for the simple reason that he, for the first time, was a man pursuing their interests. He, for the first time, helped.
Of course, this should come with a cost. According to the doctrine of the New Right the state’s intervention into the private sector’s affairs ought to cause calamity. There is no way that it is conceivable that statist policies could improve the economic situation of a nation and even by the inadequate basis of GDP per capita {which, of course, fails to asses how much each person is worth and assumes that everyone is of equal value and thus deserves and equal amount of cash} it will bring more woe overall as the state strangles business and this throttling results in the economy falling to pieces.
Alas, for Hitchens at least, “the proportion of Venezuela’s GDP in the private sector has actually increased.”
Compounding his error Hitchens references the state of Venezuela’s
And here is the usual trite contrast, long common in the Third World and rapidly spreading to the First World—gross wealth on display next to rancid squalor. Yes, there really are hovels a few hundred feet from a freeway crammed with new SUV’s. How obvious. How stupid.
In the aforelinked article by Johann Hari it is exposed exactly how foolish this point being raised is. In South America it would be a struggle to find a government that has done more to bridge this gap than that of Chavez. The damage done by this dichotomy of wealthy and poor has been reduced considerably and how exactly the lazy claim of Chavez being “The Next Fidel” {which, to Hitchen’s defence, was a headline and thus he may well not have written} is reconciled with his claims here is beyond me. For any earnest socialist intending to “Revive socialist Marxism” would not have done so in the fashion chosen by Chavez. Firstly they would have began by executing the wealthy once they seized power, or at least enslaving them, and secondly they would certainly have seized power rather than it being politely given them by the people of Venezuela acting in a democratic fashion through what Marx considered “A committee for the organisation of the bourgeoisie”. Reformist Marxists moved away from such talk while Revolutionary Marxists most certainly did not.
Which rather brings us to our next point:
Many believe he wanted to ignore the result—he is widely accused of constant, highly scientific ballot-rigging of the kind that is very hard to prove—and was only dissuaded from doing so by a phone call from his friend Fidel Castro.
The emphasise for “Many believe” was my addition, for this form of statement permeates Hitchens’ essay. In Wikipedian terms this pattern of writing is referred to as “Weasel Words” and I consider Hitchens to be a man who would do well writing a few articles for Wikinews and seeing how they were received. Effectively he uses this phrase and its variants to avoid explaining exactly who he is talking about.
Furthermore his allegations concerning vote-rigging fall foul of what his brother Christopher considers amongst “The elementary rules of logic”, to wit: “that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” I am tempted to invoke this, but would also point out that the testament of various independent election observers {every one that has observed, in fact} combined with the fact that when it came to the referendum Chavez lost suggest against such a claim.
If he is intelligent enough to make things “Very hard to prove” he surely should be capable of making sure it works.
Venezuela ought to be an advanced and free country under the rule of law. It has plenty of educated, articulate people. It has wealth. It has most of the constituents of a serious civil society, including strong public opinion.
To conclude Hitchens is educated and articulate. He has wealth. He observes the problems facing Venezuela to which there are no short-cut solutions. But in his failure to realise that Chavez could not have established himself without the popular approval and repeated mandates given to him by the vast majority of Venezuelans he also fails to make any proper assessment of the man. Constantly seeking out negatives and seeking a totalitarian iron fist where none exists he transforms the narrative of a man offering the poor a slice of the national wealth that no other would give to them into one of a vicious autocrat scheming his way into office.
Doubtless this article was highly pleasing to its readers, who wanted their suspicions of a leftist loved by his people and doing much to help them besmirched as thoroughly as possible in order to avoid their preconceptions being challenged. I have little suspicion that it failed at this but these predictable, tiresome smears do nothing to tarnish the true success of Chavez.