To the left he was a hero, a democratically elected socialist who used the oil wealth of his country to lift the very poor out of poverty and give millions a chance, up against criticism by "vested interests" who continued to tout capitalism as the answer.
To some on the right he was a communist dictator, who seized power and was running Venezuela like Zimbabwe.
Chavez ever a friend of a despot |
Well both are right.
Despite a skewed electoral system, monstrous control of the media and bullying and intimidation of the opposition, it would be churlish to deny that Hugo Chavez had many supporters. He did get elected, and it isn't hard to see why many people, granted handouts from the state, wouldn't be grateful. When oil prices were at their peak, he used the money to pay for medical centres, welfare benefits, creating civil service "jobs" and infrastructure in poorer neighbourhoods. While it is easy to pour scorn on all of this as being vote buying, it really is little different from what leftwing parties do in Western democracies, except Chavez did have money flowing in from the state oil companies. He didn't need to tax the wealthy. In that respect, it's understandable why some would think he was relatively benign, bearing in mind that other oil rich countries either keep the money largely within a tight ruling elite (Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea) or put it away into a rainy day fund to pay for pensions (Norway).
Yes he did spend the oil wealth of the country on massive welfare programmes, but he also spent it on subsidising Cuba's faltering economy, he spent it on arms and he even gave it to London, in the form of subsidised diesel for London buses, as part of a deal with then Mayor Ken Livingstone. The moral compass of both men gets tested when money that should have been for Venezuelans is transferred to one of the wealthiest cities in the world.
His economic legacy was characterised by the most fundamental error common to almost the entire left - complete neglect of the creation of wealth and an obsession with spending it.
His social legacy is that of an authoritarian state increasingly based on obedience and deference, with violence used against those who dared oppose it. It includes one of the highest murder and kidnapping rates in Latin America, with over 21,000 a year (an average of 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 4.8 in the USA), including 300 in the first half year in prisons alone. It was 4450 in 1998, the year before Chavez gained power.
How that matches with claims by the left that poverty causes murder is unclear. The regime banned private purchases of firearms a few months ago, which of course has had no effect, which given the number of illegal firearms is estimated at between 1.6 and 4.1 million, is unsurprising. However, if you were Venezuelan would you trust the state to protect your rights?