h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6696699.stm

I think this is extremely disturbing, not least because a) the BBC reports the station was popular and b) Chavez has openly stated that he plans to replace it with a station that reflects the opinions of his government more.

Democracy needs dissent and one of the fundaments of such a system is allowing your opponents to attack you (as well as having the right of reply to them) and this sort of action disrupts that balance.

I'm not totally surprised - this seems to be a pattern regularly followed by hard-left countries, and it's easily enough explained too. To me, left wing politics is all about the extent to which wealth is redistributed in a society. Wealth redistribution is not an easy thing to do because it goes against basic buy-sell economics, and messing about with it tends to increase dissent. Wealthy people are rarely too happy about their wealth being distributed. This creates an added pressure to increase the level of control you need to wield, sometimes to the extend that to do it at all you need to be oppressive.

And that's Mr. Chavez's policy in a nutshell.

"I'm not totally surprised - this seems to be a pattern regularly followed by hard-left countries, and it's easily enough explained too. To me, left wing politics is all about the extent to which wealth is redistributed in a society."

I don't agree. I think leftwing politics is all about the Common Good and social/political justice. Certainly socialists (of which Chavez is one) believe economic redistribution is the way to achieve this.

"Wealth redistribution is not an easy thing to do because it goes against basic buy-sell economics, and messing about with it tends to increase dissent."

The postwar Labour government in the UK managed some wealth redistribution without any sort of crackdowns on media freedom or political freedom, though (despite Freidrich Hayek's claims the contrary).

"Wealthy people are rarely too happy about their wealth being distributed."

True, but they're in a minority and in a democracy like Venezuela that tends to mean they need to be rather more persuasive and have to win people over to their side (the South American right seem to be rather stuck in their cold war ways which is why I think they responded to Chavez with an attempted coup rather than argument in the democratic arena).

"They're This creates an added pressure to increase the level of control you need to wield, sometimes to the extend that to do it at all you need to be oppressive."

Again, not really. Other elected socialist governments haven't stifled opposition in the way Chavez does (with the arguable exception of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua).

"And that's Mr. Chavez's policy in a nutshell."

I think there's more to it than that. Chavez is one part of a wave of popular leftwing governments that have started to emerge in South America. What makes Chavez different from these other leaders is his apparent desire to pick a fight. President Lula of Brazil, for example, doesn't hold rallies condemning the United States. Chavez has a huge popular mandate, which I think he'd have even with his crackdowns, and yet he keeps insisting that the "nation" is under threat and that he needs to silence dissent. We've heard all this time and time again and it's never a good sign. I think it's part of Chavez's character and I don't think all of it can be blamed on the coup (by all accounts he was a somewhat authoritarian figure before all that and there were already concerns about how his government dealt with opposition).

Oops - I should really spell-check before I post..

Your definition of left-wing: surely all governments, even right wing ones and certainly most centrist ones, want to achieve social and political justice? The argument is more about the means by which they achieve it, and wealth redistribution tends to be the main item on the agenda for more left-oriented ones (usually).

There is a very high disparity between rich and poor all over South America: surely a Chavez would be somewhat unthinkable in a society where wealth was relatively well distributed in the first place?

I think a lot of elected socialist governments usually plump for pragmatism and tinkering at the edges instead of fomenting widespread dissent.

But if I understand the point you are making: The argument is more around radical politics versus conservative politics than left/right. Chavez has a lot in common with Thatcher, albeit in a different political direction. Even then, Thatcher didn't exactly close down the media during her time in power (she installed Murdoch instead )

"Your definition of left-wing: surely all governments, even right wing ones and certainly most centrist ones, want to achieve social and political justice? The argument is more about the means by which they achieve it, and wealth redistribution tends to be the main item on the agenda for more left-oriented ones (usually)."

I agree I oversimplified for the sake of brevity. Political justice I'd say is a de facto position of the centreist movements. The far and extreme-left claim to want it but their absolutist ideas about social justice make it impossible. Similarly, I'd agree the centre-right (David Cameron's "new tories" for example) want some redistribution albeit as an "enabler" rather than a leveller. Having said that the conservative-right tend to be (sometimes openly) hostile to the idea of social justice insisting that the haves and have-nots are part of the natural order of things and shouldn't be tampered with. And that's before we get to the far-right who tend to believe that inequality is a good thing that should be actively-pursued and that compassion is a weakness.

"There is a very high disparity between rich and poor all over South America: surely a Chavez would be somewhat unthinkable in a society where wealth was relatively well distributed in the first place?"

I agree. Part of my problem with Chavez is that I think he's an inevitable product of the backward crawl of US power. The US supported a lot of rightwing and far-right governments and movements (many of them totalitarian) in South America during the cold war and this has lead to a "blowback" of leftist movements. They're actually quite lucky there aren't more Chavez's. Daniel Noriega's re-invention as a democratic socialist who wants foreign investment to deal with the country's social problems is a stroke of luck for them.

"I think a lot of elected socialist governments usually plump for pragmatism and tinkering at the edges instead of fomenting widespread dissent."

I agree and, ironically, their pragmatism tends to achieve much more than the radicalism of revolutionaries - hence socialism achieveing much more in Western Europe that communism did in Eastern Europe.

"The argument is more around radical politics versus conservative politics than left/right. Chavez has a lot in common with Thatcher, albeit in a different political direction."

Interestingly, that's what I thought too. I do see him as something of a leftwing Thatcher - all staring-down the oppostion and never-surrender iron will. I think that's why he has so many fans, too. There's sadly something in human nature that admires the demagogue and the strongman.

Daniel Ortega, not Daniel Noriega . Noriega was the other one.

I agree it is a worrying sign, although much less so than some of the other things that Chavez is involved in or has been involved in (like the Tascon list).

Having said that, it is worth noting that this TV station actively supported a coup attempt not that long ago. If someone tried to start a coup here and the BBC came out in favour of it on air while it was happening, do we think it would survive if the coup failed? It's also worth remembering that the large majority of the media in Venezuela are privately owned and very hostile to Chavez.

"Having said that, it is worth noting that this TV station actively supported a coup attempt not that long ago. If someone tried to start a coup here and the BBC came out in favour of it on air while it was happening, do we think it would survive if the coup failed?"

No, but the BBC has a mandate to be politically-neutral which that would mean it had seriously failed. Private media doesn't have such a mandate. The coup against Chavez was a disgrace, an affront to democracy and I'm glad it failed but that doesn't give Chavez the right to close down a TV station that is critical of him. I'm concerned that the station supported the coup but it's one of the few media outlets opposing Chavez and his government have made it plain that they were closing it down for opposing him and want it replaced with one that supports him. If this was in regard to the attempted-coup, the correct response would be to pass a law making it illegal for any station (public or private) to support any attempt to overthrow a legitimate government. If the station refused to obey any such law *then* there would be a legal and legitimate reason to take action against them (and that to not necessarily take them off the air).

"It's also worth remembering that the large majority of the media in Venezuela are privately owned and very hostile to Chavez."

In a democracy, nothing wrong with either of those things.

While I agree that it's not particularly in the democratic spirit to close down TV stations, I'm not sure this is quite as straightforward as that.

First off, it hasn't been *banned*, it's still available on cable. Its public licence wasn't renewed. This will obviously reduce its audience, and maybe lead to it closing, but strictly speaking it's not a *ban*.

Second, as has been said, the station was involved in a coup, seemingly made up of the vested interests who despise Chavez and his redistributive policies, to overthrow the democratically elected government. Taking away its public licence after that isn't really surprising.

Chavez does seem to be getting more authoritarian. So far, it seems everything he's done has been legal, rather than just forcing things through. Whether this is merely being 'neat and tidy' on his way to unelected dictatorship or not, I don't know. It *is* certainly getting rid of a rival power bloc though.

I'd be interested to know the numbers in each demonstration, and how 'spontaneous' each one was. This might be genuinely very popular, or might not (I'd guess probably not, but I don't know).

"While I agree that it's not particularly in the democratic spirit to close down TV stations, I'm not sure this is quite as straightforward as that.

First off, it hasn't been *banned*, it's still available on cable. Its public licence wasn't renewed. This will obviously reduce its audience, and maybe lead to it closing, but strictly speaking it's not a *ban*."

Well, no. But if someone banned a newspaper being distributed in corner shops and highstreet chains but allowed you to still buy it through mail order I think that'd qualify as damn near as banning it. What Chavez has done here is much the same - taken it off public broadcasters so the majority of Venezuelans can no longer see it.

"Second, as has been said, the station was involved in a coup, seemingly made up of the vested interests who despise Chavez and his redistributive policies, to overthrow the democratically elected government. Taking away its public licence after that isn't really surprising."

I've covered the whole coup thing and how I think a liberal democracy would have dealt with it (which isn't what Chavez has done). It's also worth noting in the article that the Venezuelan government's reasons for banning the station seem to be that it was opposing him and thus "destabilising the nation" or words to that effect - they're not really hiding anything.

"Chavez does seem to be getting more authoritarian. So far, it seems everything he's done has been legal, rather than just forcing things through. Whether this is merely being 'neat and tidy' on his way to unelected dictatorship or not, I don't know. It *is* certainly getting rid of a rival power bloc though."

Might be. Personally, I don't think you can call it a "dicatorship" until opposition parties are banned and free elections are cancelled but it certainly seems to be slipping towards the kind of farcical democratic system they "enjoy" in Russia.

"I'd be interested to know the numbers in each demonstration, and how 'spontaneous' each one was. This might be genuinely very popular, or might not (I'd guess probably not, but I don't know)."

Even in liberal democracies, it's notoriously hard to determine how many people attend demonstrations so in an illiberal democracy like Venezuela I'd imagine it's even harder.

Continuing the Chavez - Thatcher analogy, I think he's looking for his Falklands factor.

There are rumours that the coup was deliberately allowed to ferment and grow so it could be publically put down.

>There are rumours that the coup was deliberately allowed to ferment and grow so it could be publically put down.

Hmmm. That does sound unlikely given the serious dangers coups pose to any government (in particular in South America where they've been successful before). They're not really something a government can control or manipulate for its own purposes.

The unstable Chavez is one of the real tragedies of countries with no education system...the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich and the populists and dictators stay in power.


I even feel that the Catholic Church has let these people and others of like down, and hold a lot of the responsibility of keeping them in their place...servitude.....

"The unstable Chavez is one of the real tragedies of countries with no education system...the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich and the populists and dictators stay in power."

I agree. I think Chavez is a product of South America's colonial legacy which is what makes the country's in that part of the world different from those in Europe, for example. The peasantry are largely made-up of Native Americans and the middle-class and wealthy are largely descended from the Spanish settlers. There doesn't appear to be much class fluidity and in many ways it resembles 19th-cenury Europe before the fall of the monarchies.

"I even feel that the Catholic Church has let these people and others of like down, and hold a lot of the responsibility of keeping them in their place...servitude..... "

It's not that simple. Chavez's brand of socialism, for example, owes much to Liberation Theology and so is strictly-speaking a form of Christian Socialism.

<<"The peasantry are largely made-up of Native Americans".>>

I can't speak for Venezuela in particular, but Native Americans died in pretty huge numbers, and they make up a small proportion of the people now. Most of the poor in Latin America are black.

I think Chavez has presided over a massive redistribution of wealth, largely funded from oil revenues. I'm not sure it's fair to say the poor will stay poor under him. For now, anyway, it seems the poor are getting richer.

If their long term wealth depends on his style of economics management, I'd bet the rich get poor as well though.

"I can't speak for Venezuela in particular, but Native Americans died in pretty huge numbers, and they make up a small proportion of the people now. Most of the poor in Latin America are black."

Are you sure about that? It's certainly true for Brazil (which was never part of the Spanish Empire) but Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru etc seem to have large Native American populations. Certainly large number of NAs died during the Spanish conquests but they were hardly wiped-out as peoples.

According to Wikipedia, around 60% of Venezuelans are mixed white-Amerindian stock whilst 29% are white. Afro-veneuelans make up only 8% of the population.

Ah well there we go, should've looked it up first shouldn't I?

No, I do not want to say that with Chavez the country is not better off. It ís, mainly for those who always were in the margine of society.

The quote I posted was a reply at an article I had written, in which I also wrote about the problem that it is sad to see, that Chavez is more and more behaving like a populist, or worse (embracing the dictator of White Russia="this is the only true socialistic state in the world).

No, I would never want to change Chavez for the former presidents of Venezuela, but his acting damages his image and finally his political aims, because it is economically impossible to change an economy while ignoring the middle class. Impossible.

I am really glad, that the natives got a head of state from their own ranks. But with that startingpoint one can see, that natives have always been pushed aside and are very uneducated.