A year ago, information about the Venezuelan crisis was surprisingly scarce. Only a small cluster of conflicting ideas lurked in the corner of the Internet for those who bothered to look, promising both to inform and confound the most attentive reader. Even the hodgepodge of statistics available then, however, could reveal the pervasive corruption and violence in the country; I could hardly believe the widespread desolation. Nonetheless, after a year’s research ‘hiatus’, I return to find a country whose social deterioration has accelerated, not alleviated. From various bleak prognoses of Venezuela as a ‘failed state’ a year ago, any hope for change is seemingly pointless.
Probably one of the most shocking insights into the current turmoil is a comparison to the disparate liberty and social development which the country experienced twenty years or so ago. When Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998, his promises to eradicate poverty and promote social equality were largely fulfilled, with the establishment of various programmes known as Misiones. These were achieved mainly due to the funds created by Venezuela’s thriving oil economy. However, subliminally, these changes came with their own set of problems, which would eventually lead to the country’s downfall. Chavez began to nationalise all private industries, adding more and more financial strain to the bureaucracy. This, in itself, could have been eased, had the president decided to set some money aside and save. Yet, instead of creating a contingency plan, Chavez took his country’s tentative, newfound prosperity for granted and borrowed increasingly exorbitant amounts of money, racking up billions in foreign debt.
It was inevitable that this extravagance would overwhelm the economy. When international oil prices fell, Venezuela suffered huge losses. In fact, Chavez’ benevolent schemes to help the poor backfired, exacerbating the dire situation. By capping the prices of everyday ingredients like flour, Chavez had envisioned a two-fold scheme, designed not only to help make essentials more affordable, but also to promote a detachment from the largely agrarian economy. However, as more and more businesses stopped making a profit and shut down, Venezuela’s oil industry became the biggest source of national income, effectively guaranteeing national decline when the oil prices fell. Inflation rates began to creep up at an unprecedented rate and social security grew weaker by noticeable degrees.
Chavez did not live to see the rapid decay of his patria. In 2013, following a two-year battle with cancer, he passed away, leaving the country to the management of Nicolás Maduro, a man who began his adult life as a bus driver, in quite possibly the worst decision of his presidency. Where Chavez had been criticised for his licentious borrowing, Maduro became the embodiment of democratic hell. His first action as President was to ensure that he gained the power of ‘rule by decree’ from the legislature, apparently to enact a series of ‘economic offensives’ against the soaring inflation. However, within the first few months of his rule, it became apparent that his truculent approach to the presidency would yield nothing but a proliferation of economic troubles.
In the face of nation-wide shortages of basic foods and vital medicines, Maduro simply decided to print more money, devaluing the currency even further. In fact, the IMF predicts that inflation will reach 10 million percent in 2019 (Venezuela stopped publishing official inflation figures in early 2018…). Responding to the empty shops, empty hospitals and empty promises for which the supposedly ‘socialist’ government is culpable, it is not surprising that citizens have been protesting against this farcical deterioration of democracy. The government, in its turn, has met these protests with an iron fist. 90% of the media is controlled by the government and, although Article 57 of Venezuela’s constitution comprises freedom of speech, in practice this fundamental human right is non-existent. Rallies are not reported in the news, despite their obvious and increased prevalence, and protestors face police brutality and incarceration, as a result of Maduro’s clampdown on anti-government factions. In 2017, the Venezuelan Supreme Court removed powers from the National Assembly and Maduro set up a ‘Constituent Assembly’, intending to supplant any dissenters from the government.
For years, any elusive portents of freedom have been stifled by the Venezuelan government, under the pretence of a socialist revolution. However, some very recent developments show promise. Maduro’s inauguration into his second term in January this year was met with international dissent; moments after he was sworn in, the Organisation of American States voted not to recognise him as a legitimate leader. Paraguay and Peru also promptly cut off diplomatic ties with Venezuela, recalling their diplomats from the region and barring Maduro from entering their respective territories. More importantly, new hope has emerged in the form of Juan Guaidó, who declared himself the country’s interim president on 23rd January. Mere weeks earlier, Guaidó became the youngest leader of Parliament in Venezuela’s history and is, clearly, unafraid to show his aversion to Maduro’s rule, following years of oppressed frustration. His legitimacy as President was immediately recognised by the United States, much of the European Union and many countries in South America, with over 50 governments rallying to his support.
Although Guaidó has been subject to intimidation as a result of his brave challenge to Maduro’s incompetent rule, his unwavering resolve and defiance mark a vital shift in the zeitgeist of Venezuelan politics. In this crucial time, an entire country’s freedom hangs in the balance. Such an unprecedented beacon of hope cannot go unnoticed, yet it could still be extinguished. What is certain is that understanding the Venezuelan crisis is more important than ever. The ‘battle for Venezuela’, as Al Jazeera calls it, is still ongoing.
Comments