Chavismo has been on power for more than 20 years and its social and economic model has failed. It is already time for their followers, namely Maduro, to resign and accept that new actors should be given the chance to rule Venezuela towards progress, work and development beyond old-fashioned ideologies.
By: Nicolás Dousdebès Córdova
Journalist and International Relations analyst
UPS – Quito/Ecuador
Last Tuesday April 30th (2019) in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó tried to seize power from Nicolás Maduro, accusing him of usurpation since the last elections held in May 2018 which, according to opposition representatives, was illegal and full of irregularities in order to favor the official candidate. This action has failed so far in spite of large crowds of demonstrators on the streets to show their rejection towards the socialist leader and his regime.
The media around the world has shown how most part of the army is still supporting the official government instead of heeding the opposition’s call to help oust Maduro. Mayhem and chaos has been something quite frequent in Venezuela during this president’s rule. He has not been charismatic enough to raise support from popular sectors the way his predecessor Chavez did. In addition, hyperinflation, basic goods scarcity, blackouts and a raising crime rate has left this country on the edge of collapse. That is why many Venezuelans have chosen to flee the country in order to find jobs or at least the chance to get by even if sometimes they have had to face xenophobia in many cities and towns in neighboring countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru and even others as far as Chile and Argentina. According to a U.N. estimate, there are around three million people who have left Venezuela since 2015, running away from poverty, just as if it were a country in war like Afghanistan or Syria.
Two days later Maduro showed up along with military high commands boasting about Guaidó’s failure and threatening him as well as other opposition actors to be punished for attempting a coup d’état. However, the United States and around 50 more countries are actually supporting Guaidó and recognizing him as the legitimate president. On one hand, The Trump administration has even warned that if he is somehow attacked by Maduro that would trigger a strong reaction, which may include a military intervention. On the other hand, Russia and China keep supporting the socialist regime and both have argued that the United States is breaking the international law by meddling into Venezuela’s internal affairs.
It is hard to tell apart a real coup d’état from a popular revolution that would justify to abruptly end Maduro’s regime in order to organize a new elections process which may give new hope to the Venezuelan people.
A coup d’état has been traditionally considered as a violent action carried out by rebels or a military faction in order to seize political power beyond democratic systems. As a consequence, new authorities are imposed and eventually, a dictatorship may start governing the country or new elections may take place if those who took power are not intending to stick to it. In any case it is a highly controversial issue. Socialists must be absolutely sure that Guaidó’s actions have to be considered as a coup d’état supported by U.S. imperialism. Then, he should be punished. But opposition figures argue that a revolution is underway and the voice of the people has to be heard because the country is enduring a dictatorship that has seized all state’s powers and ruined local economy leading Venezuela to a social disaster.
Who is right at the end of the day? In order to provide an accurate answer, it is not enough to only see the current situation in this country. History is certainly able to provide some keys to understand this kind of political tensions and turmoil, at least Latin American recent History.
Back in 1973, Gen. Augusto Pinochet organized in Chile a coup d’état to oust the socialist president Salvador Allende, who had been democratically elected. His administration was not able to bring progress and wellbeing to that country but it was a legitimate government. Pinochet used military power to topple Allende who finally took his own life before surrendering to the military. Even if there was a big deal of popular discontent those days because of basic good shortages, without the violent army intervention against Allende, there would not have been a regime change. There is no doubt that this is a classic example of a coup d’état, in this case, from a far right military faction pursuing to depose a leftist president.
The October revolution in Russia, in 1917, is also a good case to study this kind of events. The so called Lenin epitomized socialist, Marxist and communist ideals that had been taking shape during the XIX century second half in Europe. The Czar’s regime was then seen as extremely unpopular. This king, Nicholas II, had led Russia to many wars and famine while he kept living in the middle of wealth and luxury. In addition, workers and peasants had been systematically exploited by a deregulated capitalist system. Lenin and Trotsky took advantage of this popular feeling, longing for a change, in order to set up different working conditions and relations. These leaders organized troops to seize the old regime symbols, for example, the Czar’s Winter Palace in Petrograd. In other words, it is a case of a popular revolution that also needed military force to oust a hated ruler considered as the main cause of oppression and poverty in Russia. As a matter of fact, the whole Romanov family was executed as a result of this coup d’état. Unlike Chile, this time, it was a leftist political movement against a government seen as sympathetic with bourgeois and capitalist sectors.
A third case could be examined to determine how exactly a coup d’état works or whether there is one or not. In Ecuador, President Jamil Mahuad was ousted from power in January 2000 because of a series of highly unpopular policies his government had implemented. Among the most outstanding ones, a huge savings confiscation took place in order to save some troubled banks. Outrage was caused in the whole country triggering a reaction from civil society in general. In addition, indigenous communities took over Quito, the capital city. As a result, this popular uprising was not repressed by the military. High commanders rather informed Mahuad they were no longer supporting his government and the parliament declared he had been stripped from his power. This president was closer to conservative political postures and his decisions made him appear guilty of favoring rich bankers instead of standing by popular causes and interests. This case was a blend of a rebellion from the grassroots and a military intervention which was not violent. It was enough to say they had taken away their support to Mahuad.
The case of the former Brazilian president Dilma Roussef, in 2016, is somehow similar to the above described Ecuadorian coup. By different reasons, corruption charges allegedly, she was also dismissed from her functions by the Brazilian parliament and many people cheered this decision. Even if most of her leftist followers denounced this as a “soft coup”, there was also a popular uprising against her government. However, the military did not have to intervene to decide whether she could stay on power or not.
Throughout these lines it has been provided a short historical review about coups and revolutions in different countries and ages. As a conclusion, there are some basic statements that remain clear. First of all, a violent coup d’état to replace a government might come from whether the left or the right side of political spectrum against their opponents. Usually, a coup might be legitimated if there is a strong citizen support to replace a government largely seen as corrupt, authoritarian or abusive. In addition, it has to be said that a coup will almost always be seen as illegitimate but a revolution sounds like a right people has to get rid of evil rulers. It is very common that both left-wings and right-wings accuse each other of being terrorists if they are plotting a coup unless they are promoting one in which case they will be likely to justify it by saying it is based upon popular support.
It would be indeed extremely difficult for civilians to topple an unpopular ruler if they only rely on their own resources or pressure. That means that a revolution will certainly fail unless another power such as a legitimate parliament or in more extreme cases, the military, intervene on behalf of popular leaders in order to stablish a power transition process. Therefore, a coup d’état, a hard one or a soft one, is almost unavoidable if any popular uprising is intending to succeed.
In the current Venezuelan case, the parliament or National Assembly has no faculty to oust Maduro. The president controls the entire state machine and has left the legislative function completely powerless by setting up a Constitutional Assembly over it. As a consequence, the military intervention is absolutely necessary if Guaidó wants to effectively become an interim president. However, only a few military men have decided to desert the official army in order to support him so far. This is the reason why he still does not hold real power in the country in spite of a partial international recognition led by the United States.
On top of this, another important issue is at stake, the Venezuelan people. It is a key element to know whether there is a real popular uprising against Maduro. If there were no discontent, Guaidó’s actions would be completely illegitimate and he would effectively be a coup plotter. But he has at least the support of the National Assembly majority and huge crowds gathering against Maduro since 2014. Some of these people have even given their lives struggling to get rid of this president. Moreover, millions of Venezuelan nationals have fled the country because hunger, inflation and shortages have become unbearable under the Maduro’s regime. So it is not a matter of greedy and violent military trying to seize power like in other coups. There is a real popular will to replace the government, even if Maduro also has many followers and “colectivos” (armed groups) supporting him by violent means.
In this situation, it seems that unfortunately, only a sudden takeover would be effective to finally get a regime change. But there is a further risk which has to do with external allies. Every part of this conflict is supported by world powers. On one hand, Russia and China are backing Maduro whereas the U.S. is supporting Guaidó. As it has been said, this latter one is unlikely to get local military support to defeat his opponent so the only way to carry out his plans to seize power, beyond what he is allowed to do within the frame of law and institutions, is to ask the U.S. army to intervene. The resulting output if this action might be catastrophic. A war could eventually be ignited, just like in Syria. As a matter of fact, Russia is willing to respond if this happens. President Putin and Serguei Lavrov, his foreign affairs ministry, have declared they are absolutely opposed to any military intervention in Venezuela but at the same time they have admitted that they would justify the use of force if a sovereign state is attacked. This obviously means they would militarily respond if the U.S. decided to intervene this way.
As a final conclusion, this conflict is about to escalate and eventually become a real war in Latin America which would involve world powers within a kind of new cold war edition. The only way to avoid such a scenario would be to understand this risk. A war would absolutely worsen the Venezuelan people’s fragile living conditions. Chavismo has been on power for more than 20 years and its social and economic model has failed. It is already time for their followers, namely Maduro, to resign and accept that new actors should be given the chance to rule Venezuela towards progress, work and development beyond old-fashioned ideologies.
(Photo by Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters)
Comments