It is very difficult to find accurate information on modern day Venezuela as Chavez has proved to be such a polarizing figure. I put as little faith in the CIA world fact books data on Venezuela as I do the data from many of its internal ministries, but nonetheless I thought a good way to mitigate the contrast between the two analysis of Venezuela would be to focus on their common critiques. Many of the supporters of Chavez have similar concerns that the opposition does. I tried to look for these parallels between the pro and anti revolutionary sources and I focused them down to three major and distinctive criticisms of Chavez. Instead of attempting to write a faithful defense of the Chavez government I thought that it would be good to compare and contrast these concerns or critiques. I do not attempt to disprove them all, but I think that if some are proven to be less true than others than it will be beneficial for both proponents and detractors to focus in on the true areas of concern for the regime; either to exploit the weakness or fortify it.
The first criticism, heard much more from the detractors than his supporters, is that there has been no revolution at all and that the programs have either been completely superficial or entirely uneffective. I found this the easiest to disprove being that there is a plethora of data on changing social trends within Venezuela. This is still frustrating however as I begin to find a huge disparity between sympathetic pro Chavez data, anti chavez sources (such as
The second criticism I define as the 'rent seeking thesis' this critique is that Chavez is simply riding the oil price wave and that as any prices in oil fluctuate he will be ousted. This has a huge historical precedence in Venezuela, being a state highly dependent on oil, but the decline in oil prices since their peak in 2004 has not proven this to be the case. I examine the changing power in the oil industry (post 2003 coup) and also the refounding of OPEC to see if the government can survive a price plunge.
Lastly, I examine the critique that the Chavez political machine is unstable and that it is entirely dependent on him and likely to explode. Since this is more of a theoretical question and harder to quantify, (other than by voting records which have not significantly threatened his dominance). I examine the power in three parts, relative to their proximity to the epicenter, Chavez himself. I examine the role of the opposition and their ability to unite against Chavez. Then I attempt to examine the PSUV itself to see if it allows for healthy mobility and growth as well as internal democracy. Finally I study the dual role of Chavez himself as the head of state and the leader of his Bolivarian revolution.
I believe that the last part of my paper will be the most critical of Chavez because by all measures it seems that he has set up an entirely dependent movement. I have already finished quite a large portion of my research and begun writing.
I know that we have already spoken about you paper many times. I see that you are concerned about obtaining data from either "pro-Chavez" or "anti-Chavez" sources and this issue seems to sincerely bother you. Perhaps it would be helpful if you look for certain data that is cited in both recognized "pro- and anti-Chavez" sources? If the same set of data is merely interpreted differently, then you could examine how different interpretations of the same data lead to vastly different conclusions about his regime and which conclusion you agree with the most. I know that you are concerned with the fact that the government, for example, does not produce statistics on crime. You mentioned that the only statistics on crime come from "opposition" sources. While this may be true for that certain type of data, it may not be true for other types. I really think you ought to seek data that is found in both anti- and pro-Chavez sources.
ReplyDelete