What made Hugo Chavez possible? How does a country let a man whose credentials are those of a coup leader who tried to topple a legitimate government become the unbridled ruler of the nation? What kind of people applaud a president who would replace the republican institutions with a system -- socialism -- that was so discredited in the 20th century?
Latin America's history shows that populist strongmen keep appearing with astonishing frequency. Understanding why Chavez came to power almost a decade ago and is now poised through a constitutional amendment to become president-for-life is a necessary step in trying to halt the emergence of future populist strongmen.
In the first half of the 20th century, Venezuela had a relatively free economy even though its political system was undemocratic. Far from giving rise to a typical state-run economy dependent on its natural resources, the discovery of oil in 1918 gave impetus to a free-market system that led to impressive results. Manufacturing and services, in addition to oil, expanded at rates greater than the economy as a whole.
But then something went wrong. It started under the dictatorial government of the 1950s and gathered pace when democracy came to Venezuela in 1958. Venezuelans went from being mostly self-relying entrepreneurs to depending on a government that began to grow -- and grow. Professor Faria thinks that economic success led to a desire for political participation -- i.e., democratic government, which in turn generated all sorts of pressures on a new political elite bent on pandering to the people's instincts for dependency rather than hard work.
I would add another explanation to the one given by Faria for the move toward big government after the establishment of democracy in Venezuela -- the political culture of the Latin American elites. They were profoundly influenced by the nationalist ideas in vogue at the time -- that development was only possible by breaking away from the international centers of power and the creation of domestic markets through government protection. The policies associated with these ideas -- import substitution, nationalizations, currency manipulation, price controls -- were deeply ingrained in the political mind of Latin America.
Economic freedom is foundational to other freedoms. Jefferson would probably argue that the right to self defence is as well. When government acts in a predatory manner or gives protections to the few at the expense of the many, it fails to contribute to progress.
23 comments:
In the words of the immortal Tom Lehrer, so simple even a child can do it.
Anybody who thinks that a Catholic country where half the babies were born illegitimate because their parents couldn't afford the price of a marriage license had been economically advancing hasn't been paying attention.
The preference of the downtrodden in Latin America for Anybody But ... is not hard to explain. What do they have to lose?
What is hard to explain is why the left revolutions have been comparatively free of Red Terror, despite the fact that the right counterrevolutions have been paradigms of White Terror.
It can't be oil if it happens all over. All over doesn't have oil.
If they can't afford a marriage license, how can they afford to raise the kids ?
Or is it a case of cash-poor subsistence farming ?
They can't.
Therefore, they support just about any moves toward income redistribution. (Of course, the landowners also support income redistribution, only in the opposite direction and they don't call it that.)
Unlike some other Latin countries, in Venezuela there really is enough wealth to go around. It just doesn't.
Harry,
in Venezuela there really is enough wealth to go around.
If wealth is viewed as some fixed quantity to be distributed as dictated by politics that leads in one direction; if wealth is viewed as the creation of a dynamic process that evolves and expands, that's another matter.
from linked to article:
The Central Bank was autonomous, the marginal income tax rate was 12 percent, the public sector absorbed no more than one-fifth of the nation's production and the government ran surpluses every year. By 1960, the average Venezuela worker earned 84 cents for every dollar made by the average American worker.
By 1960, the average Venezuela worker earned 84 cents for every dollar made by the average American worker.
seems like somekind of economic advance...
What is hard to explain is why the left revolutions have been comparatively free of Red Terror, despite the fact that the right counterrevolutions have been paradigms of White Terror.
no terror here???
Harry, gotta love ya. Income was redistributed from the poverty stricken who couldn't afford a marriage license to make the rich richer. Good trick. There's no trick to prosperity. Leave people alone to fend for themselves, they're remarkably good at it.
Mr. Eager;
You're obviously wrong about Latin Americans being able to afford to raise children, given the absence of any mass die off.
Howard;
As for lack of red terror, I think Mr. Eager was referring specifically to Latin America. The Castro regime and the Sandinistas provided plenty of red terror, so I would be curious to read some specific examples of left regimes in Latin American that didn't engage in red terror. I think the jury is still out on Venezuela. Bolivia, perhaps?
*cough*
It would be more impressive if you tried to refute what I did say rather than what I never said.
In Latin America -- we're talking about Latin America, right? -- White terror has exceeded red by an order of magnitude. I cannot explain that. It just is.
erp, income was not redistributed from the poor to the rich. The rich held on to the assets. The poor never saw them.
SH, there's been a mass die-off. It's just not the kind that you see unless you look for it. What do you suppose the death rate of babies in the Bolivian altiplano is?
It's true, they're just Indians, but I think we ought to count them anyway.
Harry, in your own words:
... the landowners also support income redistribution, only in the opposite direction ...
Neo-natal death rates are irrelevant to your point.
1) they're not an effect of parents not being able to afford to raise children.
2) You provide no evidence that the rates are different now than 10 years ago, or 100, or 1000.
3) Die-offs result in dieing off, not a lower rate of population growth.
If parents really couldn't afford to raise children, the population would disappear. That hasn't happened, which makes your claim hyperbole at best.
But let me quote from the Census Bureau:
— — —
The total fertility rate has declined by a third since 1970. Nevertheless, Bolivia has one of the highest total fertility rates among all countries of Central and South America.
[...]
Indicators of health and mortality show steady improvements.
[...]
Bolivia managed to triple its population since 1950 and is currently growing at an annual rate of 2.0 percent.
[...]
The infant mortality rate was 180
per 1,000 births in 1950 and was
above 100 in 1976, but by 1998
had fallen to 64.
— — —
Do you have better data than this? Or any data that supports your claim?
Darn it SH, how cruel can you be serving up facts instead of cherished dogma?
'... the landowners also support income redistribution, only in the opposite direction ...'
What do you think this means? Do you recall from your European history that churchmen were exempt from taxes in France? That's the sort of income redistribution I meant.
Some of the 'facts' being thrown at me are, shall we say, artfully constructed.
To take one example, in 1960 the US minimum wage was 75 cents/hr.
I doubt any sector of Venezuelan labor was really making 56 cents/hr, although it's possible that zkilled workers in the oil sector were.
A large fraction of Venezuelan workers were then sharecroppers. Many probably didn't have any cash income -- thus, no marriage licenses.
And if you don't think parental income has something to do with neonatal death rates, you haven't been paying attention.
Harry, once again you outdo yourself.
Certainly, I could have recalled from my European History classes half a century ago that churchmen were exempt from taxes in France had I thought it was relevant to the povrecitos in South America whom we've discussing. BTW - Churches in the US are also exempt from taxes even as we speak.
Sorry I have to lay down now, my head's spinning going from century to century and from continent to continent. Get back to you later. Thanks for the ride.
"if you don't think parental income has something to do with neonatal death rates, you haven't been paying attention"
No one has been discussing that. The operative phrase, again, is "parents can't afford to raise children".
Ask an artfully constructed question, get an artfully constructed answer, I should think. So, here is a (hopefully) more straightforward one. How much of Venezuela is going to get redistributed to people not named Hugo Chavez, between now and whenever Hugo Chavez's next term expires?
joe,
That's a good question.
But I think a question that's at least as important is: how much smaller (or bigger) is Venezuela's GDP gonna be because Hugo? If in 20 years it ends up being 1/2 of what it would've been, Hugo's take will be insignificant relative to what his mismanagement will have cost his people.
I thought the original question was pretty artful, the one about why people would embrace a Chavez.
There's probably a reason they did, and it's probably not that they wanted their income halved.
I must say you guys seem to have a starry-eyed view about how Latins live. All equally striving, as erp says, and no one falling behind except for his own fecklessness.
We don't have a starry eyed view of how Latins live, we have a clear eyed view of what Leftists governments do. We also see that while capitalism doesn't deliver paradise or instant wealth, it does deliver over time very substantial benefits to even the poorest people, as the statistics from Bolivia (your example) show.
Starry eyed. I wish. In a capitalistic system, there's a chance for the little guy, in a socialist system, the little guy like everyone else, not in the ruling junta, is doomed to poverty.
Wherever did you get the idea that Latin juntas were socialist?
Remember the story about the two guys being chased by a bear? One stops to put on his track shoes.
"Why are you doing that?" the other asks. "You'll still never outrun that bear."
"I only have to outrun you."
Junta is merely a rhetorical trope for the ruling party in Latin America.
Most have not been even superficially socialist.
Post a Comment