President Hugo Chavez — what will his legacy be?

The death of President Hugo Chavez on March 5 at the age of 58 is bound to have a profound impact on Latin America and the Caribbean and perhaps put in doubt the future of “the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America (ALBA)â and the Petro-Caribe Oil Agreement from which many Caribbean countries benefitted. Chavez was certainly the leading light in these developments.{{more}} His charisma and the authority he acquired over the years, along with the availability of huge oil resources put him in the forefront of politics in the Caribbean-Latin American region. Will his successor be able to command the level of authority he held, with the military looking over his shoulders and the possibility of the emergence at any time of competitors? This is the big question; for certainly the dynamics will be different. Maduro, his likely successor, is certainly no Chavez.

Hugo Chavez was a complex character who meant different things to different people. Two comments show the complexity of the man and perhaps point to the kind of legacy that he will leave. The Colombian writer and Nobel Laureate, who first met him at an early stage in his political career, said of him “I was struck by the impression that I had travelled and talked delightfully with two opposite men…One who good luck had given an opportunity to save his nation, and the other an illusionist who could go down in history as just another despot.â

President Carter who had monitored elections in Venezuela and had met Chavez, stated that he and his wife had come “to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized. Although we have not agreed with all of the methods followed by his government we have never doubted Hugo Chavezâs commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen. …President Chavez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments.â

In trying to understand Chavez we have to see him within the context of the traditional role played by the US in Central and Latin America; its frequent intervention and its advocacy and push for neo-liberal and market driven forces. Chavezâs role in the formation of ALBA was part of an effort to counter these influences and to forge an alternative to what was called the “Washington Consensus.â One has to understand the dynamics in a country which, even though it had been experiencing a period of democratic rule since the late 1950s, had been dominated by a political elite that was corrupt and looked primarily after its own interests. The allegation or reality of dictatorship against Chavez must be seen against the corrupt political oligarchy that had for long controlled things.

Chavez changed the direction of politics in Venezuela, something that impacted on other areas of Latin America. He provided access to health care and education to millions living in the slum areas, provided better housing and brought benefits to the poor and marginalised by redistributing income. He embraced Caricom, which he saw as part of that alliance to counter the influence of America.

Caribbean leaders were full of praise because he used his oil wealth to provide assistance through the Petro-Caribe arrangements, despite questions that might have emerged. In doing all of this Caribbean leaders were faced with a situation where he seemed to have been pushing them to abandon America in favour of the alternative that he was creating. But the Caribbeanâs traditional links with the US, plus the reality of millions of Caribbean people living in the US, created extreme difficulties with any thought of embracing fully what ALBA and Chavez stood for. One remembers Chavezâs use of our territory to launch an attack on the US, clearly demonstrating a lack of sensitivity to our broader interests.

Chavez was clearly not impressed with liberal democracy, believed very much in the role of the individual in history; idolized Simon Bolivar and Fidel Castro. He used his oil riches for ideological reasons, offering cheap oil to residents in the Bronx and gave valuable assistance to Cuba by providing large supplies of oil in return for medical and educational services. Chavez exercised control over the fiscal and judiciary institutions. He used state resources to dominate the electoral process, exercised harsh measures against his opponents, sections of the media, and students who had been critical of his method of governance.

His criticism of the US was constant and at one time at the UN he even called George Bush a devil, of course to the delight of many. There was also a lot of theatre that formed part of his mode of governance; his extremely long speeches and Sunday talk shows at which he sang, told stories, announced policy decisions and lambasted his opponents. Despite Venezuelaâs enormous oil reserves, the country suffered economic difficulties, facing blackouts and food shortages. The problem was that while seeking to discard market forces, he had to function within a global market economy.

Perhaps we will best understand the impact he had if the path on which he was taking Venezuela continues after his death. Like Carter, we might disagree with his methods, but we have to admit that he has made a difference to millions in Venezuela who had not been benefitting from the control of the Venezuelan oligarchy. He redistributed income and inspired hope for a better day for the poor, not only in Venezuela, but for many in the Caribbean and Latin America.

Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian.