THERE was barely a peep from the self-ordained paragons of democratic virtue when Paul Kagame was returned to power in Rwanda two weeks ago with more than 99 per cent of the vote, an improvement over his previous scores across the past three decades, after effectively ruling out any serious challenge.

No such luck for Nicolas Maduro, whose claim of a 51pc edge in last Sunday’s Venezuelan presidential election is being disputed both at home and abroad.

It doesn’t necessarily follow, of course, that either election was credible. What it does demonstrate again is the hypocrisy of the ‘international community’ — its boundaries determined by the West, and mainly Washington — as it chooses between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ autocrats. Occasionally an individual such as Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega can serve the American empire in both capacities at various times.

Hugo Chávez never fell in that category. He was pinpointed by the West as a foe soon after he emerged as Venezuela’s elected leader at the turn of the century. His several triumphs in further votes made no difference, even after a US-backed corporate coup floundered within days of a popular revolt against the would-be usurpers.

Doubts remain about the election in Venezuela.

Chávez was detested because he defied North America’s global hegemony and also challenged Washington’s so-called neoliberal ‘consensus’ — incubated in Chile under Pinochet — with policies encompassing the redistribution of wealth (to some extent) alongside measures that brought education facilities and healthcare to segments with little experience of either.

Even worse from the ‘Norte-Americano’ point of view was the Chávez administration’s inclination to share its oil wealth with its Caribbean neighbours, particularly Cuba. After the popularly backed regime change in Havana in 1959, Washington’s chief concern — as in Guatemala three years earlier, and in Chile a decade later — was to inoculate its ‘backyard’ against further outbreaks of social democracy. The same instinct kicked in 40 years later.

But it was a different time, demonstrated not least by huge protests against global capitalism within the US. The advent of what has become known as ‘Chavismo’ launched a ‘pink tide’ across Latin America. It was eventually reversed in several nations, partly as a consequence of Washington’s opposition, reflected via economic and political pressure.

The tide turned once again. From Honduras through Brazil and down to Chile, left-leaning governments are in power. Argentina is an exception, but hopefully not for too long. Amazingly (or perhaps not), Javier Milei attracts even less opprobrium from the godfathers of democracy.

Maduro, picked by Chávez as his successor not long before he succumbed to cancer in 2013, had working-class credentials as a bus driver, but lacked his mentor’s charisma and driving force.

There were, no doubt, flaws in Chávez’s conduct of affairs, but nothing approaching what has occurred under Maduro’s watch. According to the New York Times, hardly a fan of socialist experiments, “businessmen and foreign investors had largely made peace with [Maduro’s] government in recent years. Sanctions imposed by the United States had forced Mr Maduro to ditch some extreme policies like price and currency controls. The private sector was given an increasingly prominent role, public attacks against business owners had stopped and hyperinflation and rampant crime subsided somewhat”.

It’s only in the NYT’s dream world that “price and currency controls” can be described as an ‘extreme policy’ without raising too many eyebrows. What’s more relevant is the hyperinflation and dearth of jobs that have persuaded almost eight million Venezuelans — almost a third of the population — to flee abroad, mostly to Colombia, with many hoping to reach the US. Cue the absurd apocalyptic warnings by Donald Trump and his ilk about murderers and rapists sneaking into their country.

It is not hard to see the various ways in which Maduro has been a disaster for his nation, but it’s equally difficult to perceive his chief opponent Edmundo González as a viable option. The former diplomat was reportedly surging in opinion polls after replacing María Corina Machado as the opposition candidate.

Maduro’s possibly pyrrhic victory has been greeted by Russia, China, Syria, Nicaragua, Cuba and a few other states, but the likes of Brazil and Chile are wisely holding out for more complete results. It is not hard to imagine how Maduro might actually have been defeated by an equally incompetent rival, or how neither of them would concede defeat.

There is little likelihood that Venezuela would prosper under a reactionary regime, and no one can say what will emerge from the current protests in Caracas. Ultimately, though, history is likely to see Chávez as a hopeful disruptor and Maduro as a hopeless successor.

mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 31st, 2024