(With thanks to Roger Baker and Movement for a Democratic Society, Austin, TX)
Commentary No. 349, Mar. 15, 2013
"After a Charismatic Leader, What?"
by Immanuel Wallerstein
Pres. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has died. The world press and the
Internet have been swamped with assessments of his achievements,
ranging from endless praise to endless denunciation, with a certain
number of persons expressing somewhat more guarded or limited degree
of praise or denunciation. The one thing on which everyone seems to
agree is that Hugo Chavez was a charismatic leader.
What is a charismatic leader? It is someone who has a very forceful
personality, a relatively clear political vision, and capable of great
energy and persistence in pursuing this vision. Charismatic leaders
attract great support, first of all in their own country. At the same
time, the very features of their persona that attract support are the
same that mobilize deep opposition to their politics. All this has
surely been true in the case of Chavez.
The list of charismatic leaders over the history of the modern world
is not that long. Think Napoleon and De Gaulle in France, Lincoln and
F.D. Roosevelt in the United States, Peter the Great and Lenin in
Russia, Gandhi in India, Mao Zedong in China, Mandela in South Africa.
And of course Simon Bolívar. As soon as one looks at a list like this,
one realizes several things. These persons were all controversial
leaders during their lives. The evaluation of their merits and faults
has constantly shifted over historical time. They never seem to
disappear from historical view. And lastly, they were not at all
identical in their politics.
The death of a charismatic leader always creates a void of
uncertainty, in which his supporters try to ensure the continuance of
his policies by institutionalizing them. Max Weber called this the
"routinization of charisma." But once routinized, the policies evolve
in directions that are always hard to predict. To estimate what may
happen in the immediate future, one has to start of course with an
appreciation of Chavez's achievements. But one also needs to make an
assessment both of the internal rapport de forces and of the larger
geopolitical and cultural contexts in which Venezuela and Latin
America find themselves today.
His achievements seem clear. He used the enormous oil wealth of
Venezuela to improve significantly the living conditions of the
poorest strata of Venezuela, expanding their access to health
facilities and education, and thereby reducing the gap between rich
and poor quite remarkably. In addition, he used the enormous oil
wealth to subsidize oil exports to a large number of countries,
especially in the Caribbean, which has enabled them to survive
minimally.
Furthermore, he contributed substantially to building autonomous
Latin American institutions - not only ALBA (the alliance of
Bolivarian countries) but UNASUR (the confederation of all states in
South America), CELAC (all states in the Americas except the United
States and Canada), and Mercosur (the confederal economic structure
that included both Brazil and Argentina), which he joined. He was not
alone in these efforts, but he played a particularly dynamic role. It
was a role for which former President Lula of Brazil constantly
praised him. The very large number of presidents of other countries at
his funeral (some 34), especially from Latin America, attest to their
appreciation. In seeking to create strong Latin American structures,
he was of course playing an anti-imperialist role, essentially an
anti-United States role, and he was therefore not at all appreciated
in Washington.
One should note in particular the positive appreciation of Chavez by
the conservative president of neighboring Colombia. This was because
of the important and very positive role Chavez had been playing as a
mediator between the Colombian government and its long-time guerilla
movement enemy, the FARC. Chavez was the one possible mediator
acceptable to both sides, and he was seeking a political solution to
end the warfare.
His detractors charged him with fostering a corrupt regime, an
authoritarian regime, and an economically incompetent regime. There
has no doubt been corruption. There always is in any regime where
there is abundant money. But when I think of the corruption scandals
in the past half-century in the United States or France or Germany,
where there is even more money, I cannot take this argument too
seriously.
Has the regime been authoritarian? Certainly. This is what one gets
with a charismatic leader. But again, as authoritarian leaders go,
Chavez has been remarkably restrained. There have not been bloody
purges or concentration camps. Instead, there have been elections,
which most outside observers have considered as good as they come
(think again of the United States or Italy or...), and Chavez has won
14 of 15 of them. Nor should we forget that he confronted a serious
coup attempt supported by the United States, which he survived with
difficulty. He survived on the basis of popular support and support
within the army.
As for economic incompetence, yes he has made mistakes. And yes, the
current income of the Venezuelan government is less than it had been
earlier. But remember we are in a worldwide depression. And almost
every government in the world is facing financial dilemmas and calls
to austerity. It is not at all obvious that a government in the hands
of his opposition would have done better in terms of optimizing
economic revenue. What is certain is that a government in the hands of
his opposition would have done less to redistribute wealth internally
to the poorest strata.
The one area in which he has not shone is his continuing support for
an extractivist economic policy, overriding the protests of indigenous
peoples about both ecological damage and their rights to autonomous
control of their locations. But he shared this fault with every single
government in the Americas, whether of the left or the right.
What is likely to happen now? For the moment, both the Chavistas and
the opposition have closed ranks, at least for the forthcoming
presidential elections. Most analysts seem to agree that Chavez's
chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro, will win them. The interesting
question is what will happen thereafter, first of all in terms of
internal alignments. Neither camp is without its internal divisions. I
suspect there will be some reshuffling of the cards, with defections
in each camp to the other side. In a few years' time, we may have a
different array of forces.
What will then happen to "21st-century socialism" - the vision that
Chavez had of what needs to be pursued in Venezuela, in Latin America,
and throughout the world? There are two words in this vision. One is
"socialism." Chavez sought to rescue this term from the opprobrium
into which it had fallen because of the multiple failures both of
real-existing Communism and post-Marxian social-democracy. The other
term is "21st-century." This was Chavez's clear repudiation of the
socialism of both the Third and the Second Internationals, and his
call for rethinking the strategy.
In both these tasks, Chavez was scarcely alone. But he sounded a
clarion call. For me, this effort is part of the larger task we all
face during this structural crisis of historical capitalism and the
bifurcation of two possible resolutions of the chaos into which our
world-system has fallen. We need to debate what is the nature of the
better world we, or some of us, are seeking. If we can't be clearer on
what we want, we are not likely to win the battle with those who seek
to create a non-capitalist system that nonetheless reproduces the
worst features of capitalism: hierarchy, exploitation, and
polarization.
This is the official listserv of MDS/Austin.
MDS/Austin is a chapter of Movement for a Democratic Society,
a multi-issue progressive organization.
MDS/Austin mailing list: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/mds-austin.
MDS/Austin website: http://mds-austin.pbwiki.com/.
The Rag Blog: http://theragblog.blogspot.com/.
Next Left Notes: http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/.
"After a Charismatic Leader, What?"
by Immanuel Wallerstein
Pres. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has died. The world press and the
Internet have been swamped with assessments of his achievements,
ranging from endless praise to endless denunciation, with a certain
number of persons expressing somewhat more guarded or limited degree
of praise or denunciation. The one thing on which everyone seems to
agree is that Hugo Chavez was a charismatic leader.
What is a charismatic leader? It is someone who has a very forceful
personality, a relatively clear political vision, and capable of great
energy and persistence in pursuing this vision. Charismatic leaders
attract great support, first of all in their own country. At the same
time, the very features of their persona that attract support are the
same that mobilize deep opposition to their politics. All this has
surely been true in the case of Chavez.
The list of charismatic leaders over the history of the modern world
is not that long. Think Napoleon and De Gaulle in France, Lincoln and
F.D. Roosevelt in the United States, Peter the Great and Lenin in
Russia, Gandhi in India, Mao Zedong in China, Mandela in South Africa.
And of course Simon Bolívar. As soon as one looks at a list like this,
one realizes several things. These persons were all controversial
leaders during their lives. The evaluation of their merits and faults
has constantly shifted over historical time. They never seem to
disappear from historical view. And lastly, they were not at all
identical in their politics.
The death of a charismatic leader always creates a void of
uncertainty, in which his supporters try to ensure the continuance of
his policies by institutionalizing them. Max Weber called this the
"routinization of charisma." But once routinized, the policies evolve
in directions that are always hard to predict. To estimate what may
happen in the immediate future, one has to start of course with an
appreciation of Chavez's achievements. But one also needs to make an
assessment both of the internal rapport de forces and of the larger
geopolitical and cultural contexts in which Venezuela and Latin
America find themselves today.
His achievements seem clear. He used the enormous oil wealth of
Venezuela to improve significantly the living conditions of the
poorest strata of Venezuela, expanding their access to health
facilities and education, and thereby reducing the gap between rich
and poor quite remarkably. In addition, he used the enormous oil
wealth to subsidize oil exports to a large number of countries,
especially in the Caribbean, which has enabled them to survive
minimally.
Furthermore, he contributed substantially to building autonomous
Latin American institutions - not only ALBA (the alliance of
Bolivarian countries) but UNASUR (the confederation of all states in
South America), CELAC (all states in the Americas except the United
States and Canada), and Mercosur (the confederal economic structure
that included both Brazil and Argentina), which he joined. He was not
alone in these efforts, but he played a particularly dynamic role. It
was a role for which former President Lula of Brazil constantly
praised him. The very large number of presidents of other countries at
his funeral (some 34), especially from Latin America, attest to their
appreciation. In seeking to create strong Latin American structures,
he was of course playing an anti-imperialist role, essentially an
anti-United States role, and he was therefore not at all appreciated
in Washington.
One should note in particular the positive appreciation of Chavez by
the conservative president of neighboring Colombia. This was because
of the important and very positive role Chavez had been playing as a
mediator between the Colombian government and its long-time guerilla
movement enemy, the FARC. Chavez was the one possible mediator
acceptable to both sides, and he was seeking a political solution to
end the warfare.
His detractors charged him with fostering a corrupt regime, an
authoritarian regime, and an economically incompetent regime. There
has no doubt been corruption. There always is in any regime where
there is abundant money. But when I think of the corruption scandals
in the past half-century in the United States or France or Germany,
where there is even more money, I cannot take this argument too
seriously.
Has the regime been authoritarian? Certainly. This is what one gets
with a charismatic leader. But again, as authoritarian leaders go,
Chavez has been remarkably restrained. There have not been bloody
purges or concentration camps. Instead, there have been elections,
which most outside observers have considered as good as they come
(think again of the United States or Italy or...), and Chavez has won
14 of 15 of them. Nor should we forget that he confronted a serious
coup attempt supported by the United States, which he survived with
difficulty. He survived on the basis of popular support and support
within the army.
As for economic incompetence, yes he has made mistakes. And yes, the
current income of the Venezuelan government is less than it had been
earlier. But remember we are in a worldwide depression. And almost
every government in the world is facing financial dilemmas and calls
to austerity. It is not at all obvious that a government in the hands
of his opposition would have done better in terms of optimizing
economic revenue. What is certain is that a government in the hands of
his opposition would have done less to redistribute wealth internally
to the poorest strata.
The one area in which he has not shone is his continuing support for
an extractivist economic policy, overriding the protests of indigenous
peoples about both ecological damage and their rights to autonomous
control of their locations. But he shared this fault with every single
government in the Americas, whether of the left or the right.
What is likely to happen now? For the moment, both the Chavistas and
the opposition have closed ranks, at least for the forthcoming
presidential elections. Most analysts seem to agree that Chavez's
chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro, will win them. The interesting
question is what will happen thereafter, first of all in terms of
internal alignments. Neither camp is without its internal divisions. I
suspect there will be some reshuffling of the cards, with defections
in each camp to the other side. In a few years' time, we may have a
different array of forces.
What will then happen to "21st-century socialism" - the vision that
Chavez had of what needs to be pursued in Venezuela, in Latin America,
and throughout the world? There are two words in this vision. One is
"socialism." Chavez sought to rescue this term from the opprobrium
into which it had fallen because of the multiple failures both of
real-existing Communism and post-Marxian social-democracy. The other
term is "21st-century." This was Chavez's clear repudiation of the
socialism of both the Third and the Second Internationals, and his
call for rethinking the strategy.
In both these tasks, Chavez was scarcely alone. But he sounded a
clarion call. For me, this effort is part of the larger task we all
face during this structural crisis of historical capitalism and the
bifurcation of two possible resolutions of the chaos into which our
world-system has fallen. We need to debate what is the nature of the
better world we, or some of us, are seeking. If we can't be clearer on
what we want, we are not likely to win the battle with those who seek
to create a non-capitalist system that nonetheless reproduces the
worst features of capitalism: hierarchy, exploitation, and
polarization.
This is the official listserv of MDS/Austin.
MDS/Austin is a chapter of Movement for a Democratic Society,
a multi-issue progressive organization.
MDS/Austin mailing list: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/mds-austin.
MDS/Austin website: http://mds-austin.pbwiki.com/.
The Rag Blog: http://theragblog.blogspot.com/.
Next Left Notes: http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/.
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/
