Almost everyone claims to be a fervent supporter of democracy and free and open elections.
Even some of the world’s most notorious dictators have claimed they believe in democracy and totally free elections. However, in many cases, such high-sounding support is forthcoming only if the right political group actually wins election.
It’s a reality that the current government in Venezuela is confronting as its opponents take to the streets demanding the government of President Nicolas Maduro resign, based on his alleged lack of national support and ruinous policies. This despite the fact Maduro managed to win last year by a narrow margin against his conservative opponent, an electoral victory that the U.S. belatedly accepted.
But it’s not just the people of Venezuela who are caught up in the violence there. The tumult and bloodshed in that oil-rich nation is of increasing concern to its neighbours. Some fear it could have potentially dangerous ramifications for other countries in the region. Those include Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, which have had relatively close relations with Venezuela since the rule of Hugo Chavez, who died a year ago.
The collective concern over the violence in Venezuela reached the point that governments of the Organization of American States, of which Canada and the U.S. are members, held an emergency meeting Oct. 7 and reached an agreement calling for the continuation of a national dialogue between the Maduro government and its opponents to resolve their differences, in which 22 have been killed and hundreds injured or arrested.
The vote was 29 to 3; the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, along with the U.S. and Panama, voted against the joint OAS statement. Critics pointed out that the action of the Harper government and the Obama administration once again demonstrated why they were out of step with other OAS members on key issues affecting the region.
OAS members want to avoid an escalation of violence in Venezuela, with potential fallout for other states, but preventing a dangerous escalation will not be easy.
What is playing out in Venezuela is not solely about opposition to the alleged deficiencies of the leftist Maduro government. It’s also very much about a showdown between the haves and the have-nots in a nation endowed with bountiful natural resources, particularly petroleum.
Put succinctly, the coming to power of Chavez a decade ago was unlike other strongmen in Latin America who promised to bring about prosperity for all of a nation’s citizens, but carried out only minimal changes, leaving societies under control of small elites.
Chavez actually was intent on transforming Venezuelan society, especially to benefit the large sectors of society who had not benefited from the economic progress in their own country.
He was determined to transform a society where one privileged sector essentially dominated the rest of society. This determination put him on a collision course with the entrenched interests of those already benefiting from Venezuela’s wealth and who saw his reform policies as contrary to their own interests.
Despite such obvious opposition, Chavez lost no time in using the country’s wealth to introduce policies and reforms that benefited the less-privileged members of society. This included such things as low-cost housing, greater public access to education and health care, job creation, price controls on basic foodstuffs and land reforms for poor campesinos.
This resulted in growing opposition from those who regarded the reforms as threatening the country’s stability, along with their own vested interests.
Although Chavez is now dead, large segments of Venezuelan society still benefit from the reforms his so-called Bolivarian Revolution have brought about.
Whether such conflicting views can be reconciled is now the key question.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator. He served in Venezuela.
