Hugo Chávez's death gave rise to many questions
and speculations about the future of international relations within Latin
America as well as about the traditional socialist left which had been
represented especially by the Cuban political regime and Venezuela under
Chávez. The geopolitical concerns were supplemented by a rich media coverage
that often announced a new period of Venezuelan and Latin American politics. The
current symposium brings opinions of experts on these matters and tries to help
to understand them.
1. Will the distribution of power in Latin
America be significantly changed after Hugo Chavez or has the influence of his
death been overestimated by media?
2. What will the future be like for ideological anti-US and anti-Western
liberal order sentiments in Latin America and worldwide after the death of Hugo
Chavez?
Philip Oxhorn (McGill University, Montreal)
- Rather than a change in the distribution of power, there will be a vacuum.
This is because Chavez's power was more symbolic than anything, and there is no
one with his charisma to play the role of representing the Left in the region.
Given Venezuela's economic situation, countries dependent on its largesse may
suffer, especially Cuba, but that won't affect the real distribution of power.
Similarly, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) which he founded and
led will undoubtedly be weakened, but its influence was limited anyway. Looking
at the elections of his successor, it is now very clear that his legacy is being
challenged in Venezuela, suggesting a much more rapid decline in the continued
influence of the kind of policies he championed in the region than anyone would
have predicted.
- They've lost most outspoken representative. Such sentiments will not
disappear, but they will wane for at least 2 reasons. First is the relative
moderation of the US policies under Obama. Second, as the recent elections in
Venezuela confirmed, much will depend now on the capacity of leaders to focus
such sentiments around concrete and effective policies. Chavez's inability to
do so meant problems accumulated in Venezuela, which explains the lackluster
performance of his designated heir in those elections. Chavez was a master of
rhetoric, but without his personal charisma, that will no longer suffice.
David Scott Palmer (Boston University)
- Hugo Chávez was a tireless if not flamboyant defender of “21st Century
Socialism”, roughly defined as expanding the role of the state at home and
establishing strategic anti-imperialist alliances world-wide as well as
sub-regional organizations in Latin America. It is doubtful that his chosen
successor, Nicolás Maduro, will have the same success in spite of his stated
intention to follow in his mentor’s footsteps, as populism, even of the
self-defined revolutionary type, is rarely transferable. He is faced with
serious economic and social problems at home that will be very hard to overcome
by continuing Chavista policies. Regionally, however, it is likely that such
entities as ALBA and UNASUR, as well as Venezuela’s concessionary oil
arrangements in the Caribbean and Central America, will continue, though for
UNASUR at least probably under more moderate leadership.
- However dramatic the anti-imperialist rhetoric of Comandante Chávez, there
are only a few Latin American countries and others in the world which actually
follow that line in practice. The forces of globalization, as manifest in the
communications revolution and the internationalization of market economies,
commerce, and investment post-Cold War, make it unlikely that anti-U.S and
anti-Western liberal order ideological formulations will prevail. In Latin
America, only Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina pursue elements of such an
approach to governance, and even there the liberal order dominates in practice.
Even Venezuela under Chávez retained close commercial relationships with the
U.S. which actually grew during his tenure in office. The real challenge to the
West today is not ideological but religious, and is found primarily among such
non-state actors as Muslim fundamentalist groups and movements.
Natasha Ezrow (University of Essex)
- Though Hugo Chávez was one of the most important leaders in Latin America,
his death will not have significant implications on the distribution of power in
Latin America. Venezuela has always been an important state in Latin America
simply because it always has had a sizable amount of oil and has been a member
of OPEC since 1960. Venezuela was and is one of the major players in Latin
America, though never as powerful as Brazil, Argentina, Chile or Mexico.
Therefore, his death should not change the distribution of power. To illustrate
this, though Chávez forged close relationships with states that like Iran,
Syria and Cuba, throughout his tenure, trade with the US remained higher than
ever. He had more bark than bite and the media was captivated by him.
- Around 10–15 years ago a new Left emerged in Latin America (most notably
in Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay) that supported a pragmatic style of
leadership that did not ignore the needs of the poor while still creating an
environment that would be favorable to business and trade. Thus, the dominant
force in Latin America was and still is the power of the new Left, which has
tended to avoid either criticizing or praising the US and the West. As the most
vocal mouthpiece against the US and the Western liberal order,
Chávez’s death leaves a void in the sense that few leaders in Latin America
will vocally criticize the US and its policies as blatantly and honestly as
Chávez did. The most critical of the US will continue to be Evo Morales of
Bolivia, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and the Castro regime in Cuba, but none of
these leaders will garner as much attention from the media as Chávez.
Andrés Malamud (University of Lisbon)
- Not only Chávez, whether alive or dead, but the power of leadership is
generally overrated in Latin America. In normal times, the distribution of power
among nations hinges on material capabilities – such as population size, GDP
and military strength – and soft resources – such as cultural attraction,
technological forwardness and political innovation. Chávez’s Venezuela
enjoyed just one material resource – oil at all-time high prices – and one
soft resource – charismatic leadership. Now that the US, Venezuela’s main
commercial partner, hints at energy self-sufficiency, the passing away of the
Bolivarian leader leaves the country deprived of any chips at international
power tables. In a country impoverished by means of the “resource curse”,
domestic power struggles might additionally diminish Venezuela’s influence
abroad.
- Anti-American sentiment is more dependent on American actions than on its
opponents’. Closing Guantanamo and lifting the embargo on Cuba would do more
good to the US global image than the demise of Hugo Chávez, Ahmadinejad or any
other of its most vocal detractors. However, as long as the powerful exist,
there will be underdogs that resent them. Anti-Western sentiments will only
recede with the decline of the West and the emergence of new powers that, either
for good reasons or without them, needy leaders choose to hate in order to
galvanize their domestic front.
Rickard Lalander (Stockholm University)
- I believe that the symbolical legacy of Hugo Chávez will remain for a long
time in Latin America. Right now – in April-May 2013 – the domestic
political scenario of an aggressive political opposition demanding that the
April 14th elections should be nullified and that new presidential elections
should be held, complicates the short and long-term impacts in Latin America.
However, Chávez was a myth already in life, and continues to be a symbol of
anti-imperialist resistance throughout the continent and beyond. Whether media
has overestimated his death depends on where you place the analytical focus. On
the one hand, Chávez has indeed embodied the process of transformation, which
from one angle might be interpreted as a weakness of the political movement,
i.e. being so dependent on one person. However, at the same time millions of
activists at grassroots level continue the work in community councils and other
organizations. The slogan of Chavismo since January 2013 has been “Yo soy
Chávez” (I am Chávez), i.e. following the logics that Chávez is the people
and thus remains present. So, from that viewpoint, Chávez has not disappeared,
but rather multiplied and become millions.
- I've touched this in the previous answer. I can only add that Chávez was
not the only anti-US/anti-neoliberal spokesman of Latin America, although
symbolically probably the most important one. Other leftist presidents such as
Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador follow
Chávez´s ideological and discursive path, often quoting the words and ideas
of Comandante Chávez.
Martin Hrabálek (Mendel University, Brno)
- Rather than power I would use the word influence. Chávez was a very
influential leader with impact on the whole region of Latin America. He was able
to support friendly regimes such as Cuba, Nicaragua and others. Maduro's regime
will be able to build up on Chávez's heritage and on vast incomes of
Venezuelan oil. Yet I doubt the current regime will be able to influence
politics in western hemisphere as the previous did, due to the lack of charisma
of the leader and also due to a much lower support of the Venezuelan people for
current government.
- There are other influential leaders in the region, such as Evo Morales in
Bolivia or Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Those are able to raise the flag of the
abovementioned sentiments, yet both of them lack the base of oil-rich Venezuela.
In some of the countries in the region, anti-U.S. feelings are still high. The
fact is that Latin America is currently undergoing significant changes as
regards economic development and is gaining more stable position in the global
environment. Having said that, we might state that the U.S. influence on the
affairs of the Western hemisphere is lower than it used to be. We might expect
further reconfiguration of relations between the U.S. and Latin America in the
future.
Šárka Moravcová (Institute of International Relations, Prague)
- The answer to both questions is – no. There will be no fundamental
redistribution of power since his follower, President Nicolas Maduro, will try
to keep continuity. One of his main ace cards in the election campaign was
preservation of Chavez’s internal socialist politics of lavish welfare, and
foreign policy of anti-neoliberal regionalism. Thus, in the following years, no
radical turn can be expected in domestic, regional or wider international
politics. Venezuela as a geopolitically strong player may influence a general
regional ideological and economic orientation, however, there is a visible
preservation of a cooperation with the traditional local allies – leftist
states such as Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua or Ecuador. At the same time, Hugo
Chaves was a strong leader and huge personality, no matter how controversial in
the Western world. In this sense, the media have not exaggerated the decline of
the strong charismatic leadership as a general ongoing phenomenon in Latin
America, starting with the departure of Fidel Castro and continuing with the
death of Chavez.
- In the context of the previous comment, it is obvious that Venezuela under
Maduro will continue the anti-US and anti-Western campaign. The very first steps
of the new president have been very hostile towards the US and reflect further
deterioration of mutual relations. As Maduro publically accused the US of the
death of Chavez and expelled two high-ranking diplomats from the country, there
is no visible attempt to change the radical anti-Western policy. However, Maduro
won’t be able to attract such international publicity, neither regional
sympathies, as his rhetoric is not as strong and influential as his
predecessor’s. The course of Venezuela's foreign policy will depend on
Maduro's ability to uphold his mandate because the opposition led by Henrique
Capriles promotes a different foreign policy path (including improvement with
the west and turn away from non-democratic allies such as Iran). At present, it
is clear that Venezuela will preserve its anti-US position.