/ 19 August 2004

The lessons of the Chavez vote

Despite the doomsayers and predictions of a recall for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the charismatic populist recorded a convincing victory in this week’s referendum. Significantly, the turnout was unusually high for a Latin American country.

This was despite the fact that Chavez faced the combined resistance of the Venezuelan media, which overwhelmingly favour his opponents, and that great contemporary empire, the United States, which made it plain that it would prefer him out of power.

The US policy in its “sphere of influence”, Latin America, has remained remarkably consistent since World War II — if a leader is too left-leaning, fund and arm the opposition and, failing this, invade. It is common cause that the US was behind a coup that saw Chavez removed from power and then swiftly reinstated when the depth of his popular support became apparent. The will of the Venezuelan people was again on display in this week’s referendum.

Chavez is a people’s candidate who casts himself as a latter-day Che Guevara. He is not without fault — his macro-economic skills leave a good deal to be desired and, as we report this week, he has perhaps done too little to knit together a divided nation. But the referendum outcome carries an important global message.

It reveals the folly of foreign interference in legitimate governments that reflect the will of the people. And it shows that ordinary people like the sort of redistributive policies Chavez espouses, whatever clever economists may believe. In particular, the 56% support he received in the referendum reflects approval for his diversion of the windfall from increased oil revenues to feeding, literacy and education programmes. His critics accused him of raiding state coffers to shore up his support ahead of the referendum. The test of his integrity will now lie in buttressing those programmes while getting the economy back on track.

Non-interference and respect for the sovereignty of nations are issues that were thrown into stark relief by the US invasion of Iraq. They were important themes at the Southern African Development Community and Non-Aligned Movement summits this week. The implication is that the West should fight shy of imperial crusades, and instead seek to help other nations find their own answers. Home-grown solutions are, besides anything else, far more likely to win popular acceptance and to last.

At the same time, the argument for self-determination cannot, in a globalising world, amount to complicity or the indulgence of evil. Calls for non-interference look particularly flabby and hypocritical when, as in Zimbabwe’s case, an errant country’s neighbours seem loath to apply the kind of pressure that might make a difference. Apart from commanding demonstrable popular support, the strongest safeguard against American-style interference is that of muscular peer review. 

Celebrate our common humanity

The druggies and ultra-nationalists gathered in Athens for the Olympics really need to be told: they’re just games.

It is a message that especially needs to be conveyed to judo exponent Iranian Arash Miresmaeili, who opted for disqualification rather than sully his hands by touching an Israeli opponent.

The Mail & Guardian‘s position on Israel/Palestine and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government is well known. It has not budged an inch, and has, in fact, been hardened by this week’s news that Israel is planning to expand its settlements in the occupied territories. But loath as some may be to admit it, Israelis and their opponents in the Middle East are cut from the same human cloth.

It is important to remember that even the most uncompromising militancy and critical spirit should be underpinned by idealism. The hatred of injustice should grow from the dream of a harmonious world ruled by justice and compassion. This means, from time to time, celebrating what we strive for, as well as fighting to overcome what we reject.

The Olympics are two out of 208 weeks when we are invited to celebrate our common humanity and temporarily sublimate the many things that set us apart. Couldn’t Miresmaeili and his supporters observe, just for a fortnight, the Olympic spirit of tolerance, friendship, meritocracy and non-violent competition?

The Iranian’s hard-line gesture, along with the black-power podium salutes of the 1970s and the tit-for-tat boycotts of the Games by the Americans and the Soviet bloc, represent the brutal intrusion of power politics into what should be a holiday of the global soul. They also debase one of the rare occasions when the world’s marginal nations can showcase their prowess on a world stage and taste international equality.

As such, it is a salutary and uplifting experience for Africans, including South Africans. Next week the Olympic road and track events take place. Featuring such sublime athletes as Kenya’s Bernard Legat, Mozambique’s Maria Mutola and Ethiopia’s Haile Gebrselassie, it should be a festive one for our continent.