Chomsky on Venezuela
Interesting transcript of an interview with Noam Chomsky about Venezuela and Latin American democracy in general. The upshot: he hates to criticize Chavez but is concerned about concentration of executive power. Even Chomsky thinks it undermines democracy.
RC: Finally professor, the concerns about the concentration of executive power in Venezuela: to what extent might that be undermining democracy in Venezuela?
NC: Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, let's say fighting world war two, it's an assault on democracy.
RC: And so in the case of Venezuela is that what's happening or at risk of happening?
NC: As I said you can debate whether circumstances require it – both internal circumstances and the external threat of attack and so on, so that's a legitimate debate – but my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.
19 comments:
I thought the topic was Chomsky on Venezuela. ;)
The upshot: he hates to criticize Chavez but is concerned about concentration of executive power.
But why is it that the only time you quote Chomsky is when his comments are in reference to the alleged concentration of power in Venezuela?
To selectively quote Chomsky in this way creates a skewed picture of his view of the region's politics.
Some other recent views from Chomsky on Venezuela's democracy:
Q: Do you think Venezuela is less democratic a society today than when Chavez was first elected in 1998? The impression given by the Carroll article is that you believe that the concentration of executive power that has taken place under Chavez has made it less democratic than 13 years ago.
CHOMSKY: I don’t think so, and never suggested it.
Further details on Chomsky's reaction to the media's presentation of his views can be found here: http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6323
So the upshot, Greg...Chavez undermines the freedom and "democracy" of the society as a whole. Curious notion that points up and undergirds the US view that Chavez is a negative, malign force overall.
This bias is hypocritical given US support for oligarchies and corporations that be oppose expanding democratic horizons.
Iraq, Afganistan, Lybia, etc., do any of these aggressions even register?
Certainly, the people of Venezuela will evolve with Chavismo and Bolivarismo as part of the political, social, and economical DNA of the nation.
This illness is part of the developing story of the nation, and it will not play out as a game-changer in Venezuela. This situation will not play out in the oligarcy's and imperialism's favor.
Word.
Yeah, the masses are supposed to abandon the goals of Bolivarian socialism and adopt a US styled system?
Please.
I'm curious as to what Greg thinks about Chomsky's suggestion that, in assessing the Bolivarian project, one should "balance" the positive against the negative. I think a discussion of that proposition would be interesting.
And one last point, Greg. To write that "even" Chomsky thinks the concentration of executive power undermines democracy suggests you know little about the politics of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has been critical of concentrated power --in ALL its forms-- throughout his entire adult life.
One thing that Chomsky particularly dislikes is the tendency of American academics to pretend that concentrated forms of power exist only in countries that aren't allied with the United States.
Chavez undermines the freedom and "democracy" of the society as a whole. Curious notion that points up and undergirds the US view that Chavez is a negative, malign force overall.
Yes, whatever "good" comes from Chavismo could occur independent of shutting down critical media outlets, stacking public resources in favor of the ruling party in elections, jailing judges who make rulings the President doesn't like, giving the President dictatorial powers when the oppositions scores gains in election and all the other anti-democratic actions taken by Hugito.
ConsDemo:
Notice that neither you nor Greg will even discuss the Venezuelan initiatives that Chomsky considers to be "positive"? Why is that?
Justin, are you suggesting I need to look for good things to say about Chavez in order to offer an opinion on his style of governance?
Justin, are you suggesting I need to look for good things to say about Chavez in order to offer an opinion on his style of governance?
No, what I'm saying is that, for someone who purports to offer a sweeping dismissal of everything that Chavismo represents, it is strange that you don't even attempt to make a case as to why people like Chomsky shouldn't see certain redeeming qualities in the Bolivarian Revolution. To simply avoid discussing what others find redeeming suggests that you're not really interested in a serious discussion.
Unlike Chomsky, you (and Greg) refuse to put everything on the table when discussing the phenomenon of Chavismo. A serious discussion of this phenomenon would involve not just discussing whether or not the government meets all liberal-democratic standards but also what the broader effects of its policies have been.
Well, I don’t share Chomsky’s views, so there are areas were he is aligned with Chavez and would obviously give him credit.
As this article makes clear, what improvements have occurred in Venezuela under Chavez have also occurred in other countries that didn’t resort weakening democratic institutions, free press, individual rights and an independent judiciary.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/29/2291809/chavez-should-get-credit-for-economic.html
What is more, Venezuela’s economic well-being is closely tied to the price of oil and it has gone up 10 times since Chavez became President. Contrary to what many Chavistas like to pretend, past Presidents, who were often social democrats rather than the right-wing oligarchs as Chavez claims, instituted many social programs when they enjoyed an oil bonanza. When that bonanza dried up, there were cutbacks. The most recent oil bonanza dwarfs those in the past and yet Venezuela’s overall economic performance has been mediocre at best. So, no, I don’t see any evidence that the good things have happened in Venezuela are due to Chavez, rather if credit goes to anyone, it should be profligate US energy consumers and new consumers in China and India who have driven up the price of oil, as much as anything else.
As usual, Oppenheimer shows he has limited knowledge of Venezuelan history. The Chavez government hasn't managed the country's oil resources as well as it should have, but the notion that Venezuela's economy had never previously stagnated amidst record-high oil prices is false. You can go back and check the data. In the early 1980s, record-high oil prices coincided with negative growth rates in Venezuela for a number of years.
Now, let's take a look at your other claims, point by point.
As this article makes clear, what improvements have occurred in Venezuela under Chavez have also occurred in other countries...
According to CEPAL's data, the reduction of economic inequality in Venezuela under Chavez has been greater than in any other Latin American country over the past 20 years. You've yet to even acknowledge this fact, much less explain why we should discount its significance in a region characterized by the worst levels of economic inequality in the world.
The most recent oil bonanza dwarfs those in the past
It actually doesn't. I encourage you to go back and look at the inflation-adjusted oil prices of the early 1980s. The prices were very similar to current prices.
So, no, I don’t see any evidence that the good things have happened in Venezuela are due to Chavez, rather if credit goes to anyone, it should be profligate US energy consumers and new consumers in China and India who have driven up the price of oil, as much as anything else.
The burden of proof is on you and the Venezuelan opposition to demonstrate that an opposition government would have used the country's oil resources in such a way as to bring down poverty and inequality to the extent that the Chavez government has. Given the interests that the main opposition groups represent, I see no reason to believe that would have been the case.
Now, as for the other initiatives Chomsky sees as positive, here's what he said:
Venezuela played a leading role in initiating Unasur [Union of South American nations] and the Bank of the South, and most recently the formation of Celac [the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States] which is to have its first meeting this July. Celac, if it works, will be the first functioning organisation in the western hemisphere that includes every country in the western hemisphere except the United States and Canada, and that would be quite an important step towards integration and independence.
A considerable amount of scholarship indicates that the U.S. has a long history of (1)supporting right-wing authoritarianism in Latin America and (2) foisting policies on the region that have exacerbated its already atrocious levels of social inequality. In view of the history, why do you think people like Chomsky shouldn't view Venezuela's sponsorship of greater Latin American independence from the United States as fundamentally positive?
As usual, Oppenheimer shows he has limited knowledge of Venezuelan history. The Chavez government hasn't managed the country's oil resources as well as it should have, but the notion that Venezuela's economy had never previously stagnated amidst record-high oil prices is false.
Where is Oppenheimer claiming Venezuela never stagnated in the past?
You can go back and check the data. In the early 1980s, record-high oil prices coincided with negative growth rates in Venezuela for a number of years.
You’ve got the overlap of these events slightly off. Venezuela’s economy boomed in the 1970s with similar oil price hikes and many social indicators improved, once prices collapsed in the early 1980s, the economy headed south. Anyway, I don’t contend it never suffered stagnation in the past, nor do I think Oppenheimer makes such a claim.
According to CEPAL's data, the reduction of economic inequality in Venezuela under Chavez has been greater than in any other Latin American country over the past 20 years.
That is the source of Oppenheimer’s numbers, and they don’t bear out your assertion. Looking at the raw change, the decline in Argentina dwarfs what occurred in Venezuela. In relative terms the decline in Chile (dropping by nearly half) beats what happened in Venezuela. The point remains, in supposedly the most prominent accomplishment of chavismo, Venezuela essentially did as well as the rest of Latin America. In so many other areas it has done worse.
You've yet to even acknowledge this fact, much less explain why we should discount its significance in a region characterized by the worst levels of economic inequality in the world.
I haven’t discounted it at all, I repeat what I stated earlier, I’m just hard pressed to tie any virtues to Chavez or his model of governance. Other nations did as well on this metric and better on others, again without sacrificing political pluralism.
I encourage you to go back and look at the inflation-adjusted oil prices of the early 1980s. The prices were very similar to current prices.
Actually it does, the price quintupled between 1973 and 1980, where as the current price is nine times higher than the price in 1998.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
To be sure there has been some fluctuation but using the current price as the end point the increase has been greater and the length of the run-up has been longer.
The burden of proof is on you and the Venezuelan opposition to demonstrate that an opposition government would have used the country's oil resources in such a way as to bring down poverty and inequality to the extent that the Chavez government has.
Once can’t prove hypotheticals and if you are one of these diehard Chavistas, you are impervious to evidence anyway. Several points are relevant, social indicators improved when the country was governed by Accion Democratica and COPEI, who comprise part of what is the opposition today. Other nations have achieved the same improvements with the same drawbacks.
Given the interests that the main opposition groups represent, I see no reason to believe that would have been the case.
Well again, if you are like other Chavez sycophants I’ve encountered, you can’t believe anything else. I have no great love for the Venezuelan opposition, but political groups win elections by benefiting the voters, so I think their incentives would be improve people’s lot. In any case, I’ll say again, you can make improvements in the quality of life without resorting to the demagogic authoritarianism employed by Chavez.
A considerable amount of scholarship indicates that the U.S. has a long history of (1)supporting right-wing authoritarianism in Latin America and (2) foisting policies on the region that have exacerbated its already atrocious levels of social inequality.
Yeah, this line of argument is brought up anytime some anti-American autocrat is questioned. I’m not going to defend every American action in Latin America or anywhere else, but the US is blamed for a many events that it really had no part in. A good many of the military dictatorships the governed Latin America prior to the 1990s didn’t come to power because of anything the US did (Chile being an exception). The left-wing forces in Latin America have hardly been devoid of flaws either. However, most regrettable US actions are at least two decades old. There are no American colonies in Latin America (with the possible exception of Puerto Rico, and they have voted against separation several times). Most the nations either enjoy good or cordial relations with the US, none take orders from the US, I’m not sure how they could be more independent if “independence” is defined as something other than hostile. What separates Chavez (and Morales, Ortega and Castro), from the rest is rabid anti-Americanism. Whatever one thinks of Castro, I can at least understand his hostility given history. Chavez’s grievances are largely imaginary and trumped up to achieve political aims. Chavez can’t give a speech without talking about a supposed CIA plot to kill him or an American invasion, yet neither ever seems to happen. Don’t bother trying to invoke the 2002 coup attempt, there is no credible evidence of American involvement. At most you can say they didn’t condemn it, but the perpetrators were all Venezuelan, Eva Golinger’s “evidence” to the contrary is pretty thin. If Chavez can’t flush his toilet, he claims it’s a CIA plot. Although I do think Chavez is paranoid, his anti-US rhetoric serves at tactical purpose to paint himself as some sort of brave leader facing the threat from the evil giant and to demonize his domestic opposition as American stooges.
You’ve got the overlap of these events slightly off.
Go back and look at the data. The peak oil price years for that period were from 1979 to 1984. During the peak oil price years of the period, Venezuela registered negative growth rates.
That is the source of Oppenheimer’s numbers, and they don’t bear out your assertion.
Any social scientist who understands the CEPAL data on economic inequality will tell you that Andres Oppenheimer doesn't know what he's talking about. According to the CEPAL data, Venezuela has the lowest recorded Gini coefficient of any Latin American country over the last twenty years, and the data also indicates that Venezuela underwent the largest decline in economic inequality.
Venezuela went from a Gini coefficient of .507 in 1997 to .412 in 2008. According to the data available, there is no other country in the hemisphere that has undergone that large of a reduction in the Gini coefficient over the past twenty years. If you don't believe me, you can check the data yourself. Here it is: http://websie.eclac.cl/sisgen/ConsultaIntegrada.asp?idAplicacion=1&idTema=363&idioma=i
Looking at the raw change, the decline in Argentina dwarfs what occurred in Venezuela.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
In relative terms the decline in Chile (dropping by nearly half) beats what happened in Venezuela.
You're wrong about that too.
A good many of the military dictatorships the governed Latin America prior to the 1990s didn’t come to power because of anything the US did (Chile being an exception).
Demonstrably false. The U.S. was complicit in supporting so many right-wing dictatorships that it's hard to count them all. For most of the Cold War period, U.S. support for right-wing military dictatorships was commonplace. The United States was complicit in the '64 coup in Brazil. It organized the overthrow of Arbenz in '54. It supported Joaquin Balaguer in the Dominican Republic, despite the fact that Balaguer had little respect for civil liberties. The list goes on and on and on. The history is not pretty.
However, most regrettable US actions are at least two decades old.
You choose to ignore U.S. complicity in the Venezuelan and Haitian coups, the Obama Administration's deliberately ineffectual approach to the Honduran coup, not to mention U.S. support for holding elections under completely undemocratic conditions in Honduras.
Don’t bother trying to invoke the 2002 coup attempt, there is no credible evidence of American involvement.
It is an established fact --as reported in the mainstream press-- that a CIA cable dated April 6, 2002 describes the Venezuelan coup plot. Then, during the Venezuelan coup, Ari Fleischer of the Bush Administration suggested there was no coup at all but rather a spontaneous mass revolt against Chavez. In other words, the CIA cable shows the CIA knew of the coup plot, yet the Bush Administration covered that up during the coup itself. In other words, there is clear evidence of Bush Administration complicity in the coup, simply by virtue of the fact that the Administration tried to cover it up.
You've yet to make a serious case as to why Chomsky shouldn't applaud Venezuela for its leading role in helping form Unasur, the Bank of the South, and Celac (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).
None of this is to say that the Chavez government has shown sufficient regard for the country's political institutions. It is simply to say that you've yet to make a cogent case as to why people like Chomsky or myself shouldn't see some redeeming qualities in the Chavez government.
The peak oil price years for that period were from 1979 to 1984.
The link I posted earlier showed the oil peaked in 1980 and had dropped 40 percent by 1984 so I’m not sure what you are referring to.
According to the CEPAL data, Venezuela has the lowest recorded Gini coefficient of any Latin American country over the last twenty years
Oppenheimer was referring to the share of population living in poverty. The Gini coefficient says describes the distribution of income or wealth. A change in the Gini coefficient, by itself, doesn’t measure the change in the well-being of the poor. A nation with a million people living on a $1 a day and three millionaires could lose a millionaire who takes his assets to another country (something that has been happening in Venezuela) and its Gini coefficient could improve but the well-being of the poorest wouldn’t change. I also suspect the Gini coefficient doesn’t include hidden wealth. There is a good deal of griping about the “Boliburguesa” in Venezuela, Chavez acolytes who seem to be living very well while they hold public offices with ostensibly modest salaries. I’ve even heard this from chavistas, although they don’t blame Chavez but rather “ladrones” in his inner circle.
You can cite the Gini coefficient all you want but Oppenheimer’s measure is a good deal more meaningful if one is trying to measure the absolute well-being of the poor, and on that score, Venezuela’s change has merely mirrored the rest of the continent at the same time it was enjoying and oil bonanza other nations didn’t enjoy.
You've yet to make a serious case as to why Chomsky shouldn't applaud Venezuela for its leading role in helping form Unasur,…
Chomsky can think whatever he wants. I suspect most Venezuelans are good deal more concerned with what is happening within their nation’s borders than any international agreements Chavez arranges. Another common criticism of Chavez is aid to other countries that Venezuelans think of as giveaways.
there is clear evidence of Bush Administration complicity in the coup, simply by virtue of the fact that the Administration tried to cover it up.
Sorry, it isn’t. Those same cables even say Chavez was warned that a coup was a possibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/international/americas/03venezuela.html
I'm sure they wouldn't have shed any tears if the coup had succeed but there were no Americans or American weapons involved, the evidence of Chavez’s past aid to FARC is a good deal stronger than any American involvement in coup.
The list goes on and on and on. The history is not pretty.
The junta in Argentina received no aid or support from the US, the Carter Administration severed ties with the dictatorship in Brazil. As I noted above, every bad thing that happened in Latin America over the last 50 or 60 years isn’t the fault of the US and more importantly, whatever happened in 1954, isn’t an excuse for any all anti-democratic practices by authoritarian populists such as Chavez. The fact you can’t offer a defense of them is telling. Do you think the government should be able to shut down or take over critical media outlets? Should the judiciary be entirely subservient to the Executive? Should the President be able to rule by decree when the opposition makes gains an election? Should the ruling party be able to tap unlimited public resources in its elections campaigns?
There is a good deal of griping about the “Boliburguesa” in Venezuela, Chavez acolytes who seem to be living very well while they hold public offices with ostensibly modest salaries. I’ve even heard this from chavistas, although they don’t blame Chavez but rather “ladrones” in his inner circle.
In other words, when the data doesn't serve your ideological agenda, you resort to anecdotes. This is par for the course.
There's all kinds of research coming out now suggesting that the reduction of economic inequality is an important social goal in and of itself. Epidemiologists have been emphasizing the correlation between economic inequality and poor social indicators for years now. While the average American, for example, has a higher material standard of living than the average European, his/her health is worse and his/her life expectancy is lower. There's considerable evidence of a causal relationship between the social inequities of American society and its relatively poor social indicators.
Thus, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Venezuela's lower-than-average inequality figures can be dismissed out of hand. Such figures don't excuse the Chavez government's failures in other areas (such as its failure to reduce crime), but it makes no sense to dismiss their significance.
You can cite the Gini coefficient all you want but Oppenheimer’s measure is a good deal more meaningful if one is trying to measure the absolute well-being of the poor, and on that score, Venezuela’s change has merely mirrored the rest of the continent at the same time it was enjoying and oil bonanza other nations didn’t enjoy.
Any cursory glance at the data will disprove the validity of your portrayal. At the very least, Venezuela's reduction in poverty and misery has exceeded the regional average, and, moreover, there is every reason to believe that the reductions in inequality are more significant than you suggest.
Chomsky can think whatever he wants.
In other words, you have no grounds for claiming that he shouldn't applaud the Chavez government's push for greater regional integration.
As for the coup, have you watched Ari Fleischer's press conference from April 12, 2002? The evidence is clear as day, ConsDemo. The Bush Administration tried to cover up that a coup was under way.
Even an arch anti-Chavista intellectual, Mexico's Jorge Castaneda, has presented evidence that the Bush Administration was effectively complicit in the coup. Castaneda, who was Mexico's foreign minister at the time of the coup, was quoted by AFP as stating the following:
"Effectively, there was a proposition made by the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and France recognizing the government of Pedro Carmona." (AFP, November 28, 2004)
By what contorted logic can you claim that that does not constitute complicity with Venezuela's coup leaders?
whatever happened in 1954, isn’t an excuse for any all anti-democratic practices by authoritarian populists such as Chavez.
I actually don't concur with the view that Chavez meets the definition of an authoritarian leader, but I agree that legislation giving him decree powers over certain policy areas does not meet democratic norms. I don't think such decree powers are good for the deepening of democratic institutions.
The problem with your characteizations is that they are based on ideology, not any real set of ethical standards. In the early 1990s, Argentina's Carlos Menem passed hundreds of neoliberal "reforms" by decree (or the threat of decree), but I never heard anyone of your ideological ilk call Menem "authoritarian" on account of that fact. You only selectively apply such pejorative labels to left-populist presidents because it serves your political agenda.
Do you think the government should be able to shut down or take over critical media outlets?.
I think there's a flawed process in Venezuelan law, whereby the president can decide whether a public channel gets its license renewed. It would be preferable to place that decision-making power in an independent governing body. However, this institutional flaw actually predates Chavez.
But if you're asking me whether or not I think RCTV had an automatic "right" to have its license renewed, I would emphatically say no. The "right" to control part of the public airwaves comes with certain legal obligations. RCTV's clear support of an extra-legal coup would have jeopardized its license in any country of the world over, so I don't think this case constitutes evidence of "authoritarianism."
Should the judiciary be entirely subservient to the Executive?
No, and I'm not so sure it is entirely subservient to the executive. However, I suspect it's true that the Chavez government (and Chavismo more generally) has insufficient respect for the independence of the judiciary.
Should the President be able to rule by decree when the opposition makes gains an election?
I don't think a president should rule by decree at any time except the most dire of circumstances, but, as I mentioned before, such a basis for claiming that Chavez is authoritarian smacks of a double standard. When a right-wing figure like Menem uses decree power to pass the kind of legislation that your side likes, nobody seems to bat an eye about it.
Should the ruling party be able to tap unlimited public resources in its elections campaigns?
Unlimited public resources? On what basis do you claim that Chavistas have access to "unlimited public resources" for their campaigns? And why shouldn't people be any less concerned about the amount of private resources that either side could conceivably tap into?
Sorry for the delayed response.
But if you're asking me whether or not I think RCTV had an automatic "right" to have its license renewed, I would emphatically say no.
Yes, very convenient logic. Chavista stations proliferate while critical stations wither.
No, and I'm not so sure it is entirely subservient to the executive. However, I suspect it's true that the Chavez government (and Chavismo more generally) has insufficient respect for the independence of the judiciary.
Yes, judges who make contrary rulings are jailed.
I don't think a president should rule by decree at any time except the most dire of circumstances, but, as I mentioned before, such a basis for claiming that Chavez is authoritarian smacks of a double standard. When a right-wing figure like Menem uses decree power to pass the kind of legislation that your side likes, nobody seems to bat an eye about it.
You are trying to change the subject again. If ruling by decree, suppressing press freedom and lack of independent judiciary makes one authoritarian than Chavez certainly fits the bill.
Unlimited public resources? On what basis do you claim that Chavistas have access to "unlimited public resources" for their campaigns? And why shouldn't people be any less concerned about the amount of private resources that either side could conceivably tap into?
Here are three links that discuss use of state resources for campaigning, two in Spanish and one in English.
http://el-nacional.com/www/site/p_contenido.php?q=nodo/154194
http://www.enfoque365.net/N15105-el-quirfano--chvez-usa-recursos-de-la-fan-en-la-campaa-electoral-del-psuv.html
http://www.economist.com/node/17093517
Post a Comment