The defeat of a bankrupt philosophy

[Tigermike 3,041]

Chavez can still do great harm (to the people and the country of Venezuela) since he will remain in power until 2013; and, with his sort of malignant personality, it is very likely he will. But it has become clear that his touted "21st Century Socialism" is just the same, tired, old 20th century Marxist bull, proven to be toxic to human society.

,,,,

..........

In defeat, Mr Chávez said that he would try again for the constitutional reform. But if he does, he will probably lose again. For something fundamental has changed in Venezuela. Over the past nine years Mr Chávez has regularly been able to count on the support of some 60% of voters against an opposition discredited by the failures of past governments and its support for an abortive coup in 2002.

Three things have now altered that pattern, probably for good. First, the opposition has been revitalised by a new and vigorous student movement, untainted by the past. The second is growing apathy and disillusion among the chavista faithful. Behind that lies the sheer incompetence of the Bolivarian revolution and its recklessly expansionary economic policies (see article). Ordinary Venezuelans note that they cannot buy milk even when oil is close to $90 a barrel. Third, the constitutional reform opened up a fissure between authoritarians and democrats in the chavista camp.

Mr Chávez faces a choice: move quickly to a command economy, or to more sustainable policies. His referendum defeat makes the first course hard: it would risk a split in the armed forces and serious violence. The better option would be for him to draw back, make his peace with his own moderates and cool the economy. That would require humility he has yet to show, and might undermine his popularity.

The best news is that powerful figures in the armed forces and the chavista movement are committed to democracy. This third force, between Mr Chávez and the opposition, holds out hope that Venezuela can navigate a peaceful course towards the alternation of power. It helps, too, that the conservative opposition has at last embraced the 1999 constitution.

The defeat of a bankrupt philosophy

The ramifications of Mr Chávez's defeat go far wider than Venezuela. He has always proclaimed the Bolivarian revolution to be continent-wide. Because it is such a personal project, its life is now finite: absent constitutional change, Mr Chávez must leave office by 2013. Economic pressures at home mean that his bounteous foreign aid—including cheap oil for Cuba—may be trimmed before then. That gives extra urgency to the efforts of Cuba's acting president, Raúl Castro, to launch economic reforms against the apparent opposition of his elder brother, Fidel. In Bolivia, Evo Morales, a socialist of Andean-Indian descent who is Mr Chávez's closest disciple, faces mounting opposition to his efforts to impose a new constitution that would cement his power. In Ecuador another self-proclaimed 21st-century socialist, Rafael Correa, is rapidly putting some distance between his ideas and Mr Chávez's.

Although in some ways they threaten democracy, the likes of Mr Chávez and Mr Morales may well have ended up broadening it, since they represent groups who have previously felt excluded. Their mistake lies in clinging to an old-fashioned socialism, involving the centralisation of political power and state control of the economy. Most Venezuelans—and most Latin Americans—clearly have no enthusiasm for this. It was not so much Mr Chávez who was defeated in the referendum, as his bankrupt philosophy. That is good news for Latin America, and especially for its poor.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...ory_id=10252006