Hugo Chavez Legacy?

On Tuesday, the Venezuelan President finally succumbed to the cancer that has beset him for several years now. In death, the question that emerges is his legacy. While some on the left believe he is a great leader who continued the struggle for communism and against imperialist America, many others believe he is just another typical South American dictator, who was more interested in power than actually helping improve the quality of life for his people. The facts are hard to ignore. Venezuela has among the highest inflation rates in the world, the highest crime/murder rates, the largest fiscal deficits, the fastest growing debt, is the only OPEC country that suffers from shortages of staples like milk, flour and sugar and has infrastructure that has collapsed, is in serious disrepair or has been taken over by gangs that thrive across Caracas and other cities in this dying country (Slate). On the other hand, Chavez did use oil monies, as promised, to reduce the number of people living in moderate poverty from 54 to 31 percent and those in extreme poverty from 23 to 9 percent between 1997 and 2011 (according to the World Bank). He dramatically reduced illiteracy, set up medical clinics in working class neighborhoods and slums across the country and set up discount grocery stores as well (LA Times). 

Chavez has instituted some interesting democratic reforms, like the city councils that can use government funds however they like (based on town decisions) and has had more elections than most of his dictator predecessors, but had a systematic approach to ensuring reelection over and over again. He censored the media, attacked political enemies, in some cases didn't even let them run and appeared to treat the country like a fiefdom over which he had absolute power. Like so many populist leaders before him, the power appeared to go to his head and undermine the good he was trying to do. And while the statistics might, in some cases, provide arguments for his success, I have read article after article describing a country that lives on the edge of chaos, with criminal gangs taking over buildings, insanely high crime and murder rates, crumbling infrastructure and a general decline in quality of life since Chavez entered office. It is important to recognize the strong national interest in painting a damning image of one of the most combative leaders America has been challenged by since the Cold War ended, but I've never really thought of The New Yorker or Salon as spokesman for the American government.

A third legacy of Chavez' that must be considered is the way his anti-American rhetorical campaign helped to bring the countries of Latin America together, after reassessing the policies of the Bush Administration. Chavez played an instrumental role in the formation of the Union of South American Nations and other organizations that brought further integration to the region. He also provided an alternative voice to the illegal and troubling policies of an administration that was doing a good job post-911 of stomping out much of that critique (at least internally). While Chavez' rhetorical flourishes, and the company he kept with people like Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, might have undermined the meat of his critique, it did galvanize those that were troubled by the policy tact that 2001 embarked us upon. 

Really a legacy is often defined by not only what one leaves behind but what comes next. His handpicked successor, Nicolas Maduro, will likely face  election within 30 days and, if he wins, a bleak economic future, rising crime rates and a deeply polarized nation. Maduro appears to lack the charisma of his predecessor and might thus be pushed to actually seek the support of his people through policies that improve their lives and allowing them to give voice to their grievances, desires and dreams. If the rhetoric of Chavez' push to realize a Bolivar revolution together with socialist accents were achieved within a democratic milieu, we might just need to reassess that legacy. At it current stands, it is hard to argue he has left the country better off than he found it.