Chavez Finds Some Breathing Room by Andrew Brooks

In recent months, Hugo Chavez has made sweeping reforms to the Venezuelan political system. Chavez supporters have become empowered by his new socialist reforms, while detractors have seen the reforms as a logical step in Chavez’s authoritarian populization of Venezuelan politics. Changes in Venezuelan domestic policy and communications, and in American foreign policy have given Chavez the political space to become aggressive in policy-making. The timing and scope of Chavez’s reforms is strategic, relying in part on changes in US party politics.

A populist, Chavez derives power mainly through aggressive partisan policy, media influence, and by cultivating an image of protector, defender, and revolutionary. His administration floods newspaper and television media with his political message as well as harsh rhetoric against the opposition. He also engages in more subtle forms of media control through a network of loyal supporters placed in high corporate media positions to influence content and, allegedly, to intimidate journalists. While some point to opposition television stations such as Globovision as examples of free press, Chavez refused to renew the operating license for RCTV, Venezuela’s second largest station, and supporter of the 2002 coup attempt. Furthermore, Chavez hosts a live talk show, Alo Presidente, in which he addresses political and social issues. This show was broadcast weekly until January, when Chavez announced that it would become daily.

Chavez’s “Bolivarian Missions” ostensibly constitute a strive towards democratic socialism, emphasizing poverty reduction, free health care, free education, worker-managed governance, and nationalization of communications, industry, and natural resources. In January, Chavez began a fresh six-year term and passed a new enabling act, expanding his powers for the next 18 months to rule by decree. Critics call it a blitz towards authoritarianism, while Chavez and his administration look forward to a new era of “maximum revolution.”

Chavez’s foreign policy has relied on an adversarial position towards the United States. He has drawn legitimacy for a trade agreement and coalition of Latin American leaders Evo Morales and Fidel Castro and for another coalition with Iran and Russia. Branding Bush an imperialist, “el Diablo,” and “pendejo,” Chavez’s image of strength and independence from the world’s greatest power allows him to push harder on anti-market reforms. The two leaders have had harsh rhetorical squabbles that may be coming to an end.

The United States has experienced an enormous shift in its foreign policy discourse. Only months after the 2006 US midterm elections that saw Democrats win control of both the House and Senate, the American foreign policy discourse has shifted. Whether due to failures in Iraq and a worsening situation in Afghanistan, or to a shift in party control of both legislative houses, isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric has made a revival. In February, the House voted to reprimand the president for his Iraq policy. Further Iraq involvement, for better or worse, will be hampered by disagreements between President Bush and Democrats and skeptical Republicans in the House and Senate. Furthermore, with discussion of interventions in Iran and North Korea on the rise, the United States is in a difficult position, highly skeptical of any type of escalation in new geopolitical regions.

Chavez now has more space to develop his image as protector of the Venezuelan people. In early March, 2007, he held a protest against President Bush’s Latin American trade talks, setting up rallies virtually next door. The lack of response from Bush or other US policy-makers, whose hands are tied by the new isolationist sentiment, will be seen by many Venezuelans as a sign of defeat or weakness. Rule by decree and increasing media control allow Chavez to broadcast his message of revolution without the delegitimization of international reprimand. Due to the circumstances, we can expect to see Chavez grow even bolder in his rhetoric, policy, and cooperation with states unfriendly to the United States.