I’m particularly pleased that the Dickinson intramural faculty team (Team “A Useful Education”) won its first game—and in the playoffs, where it really counted! Sadly, I missed the excitement, since I was attending an evening presentation by Julio Carrión (U of Delaware), the Latin American Studies guest speaker.
That said, the presentation last evening was great. Carrión’s quite witty. And, of course, extremely insightful—w/ a solid track record as a public opinion researcher: his PhD’s from Pitt & he participates in the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP),1 alongside Mitchell Seligson (Vanderbilt). After giving some context on the recent Andean presidential elections—in Bolivia (Dec 2005), Peru (Apr/Jun 2006), Colombia (May 2006), Ecuador (Oct/Nov 2006), and Venezuela (Dec 2006)—he explored why Andean publics seem willing (in some cases more than others) to elect candidates w/ “dubious” democratic credentials.
I think some of the audience were uneasy by the comparison between Fujimori (who everyone was willing to acknowledge as an “electoral authoritarian” figure) & Hugo Chávez (who many want to see as a “hero” for “social justice”). But their track records—closing the legislature, demanding decree powers, intimidating their political opponents, eroding the power & independence of the judiciary, etc.—seem to speak for themselves. I frequently wonder why so many are willing to accept authoritarian solutions from Chávez while condemning Fujimori. After all, both spent a great deal of time (and public funds) giving assistance to their country’s poor. But such assistance is often more of a band-aid than real structural changes—and usually tied to demonstrations of public support for the regime.
What is most interesting, of course, is that Venezuela has little changed economically—in a structural sense—since Chávez took office. He’s been in power for nine years now, and will be in power at least until at least 2013—though he’s mulling over yet another constitutional change to allow him to run for yet another term (or even an “indefinite” number of terms). According to the UNDP’s Human Development Index reports, Venezuela today ranks 77th in terms of overall human development, 59th in terms of live expectancy, 41st in terms of literacy, and 88th in terms of GDP per capita. If you look at the UNDP country report on Venezuela the results are mixed: some improvement in socioeconomic indicators, but barely more than what you see in Brazil—which is not an electoral authoritarian regime, suggesting that such measures aren’t “necessary” (as Chávez & many of his supporters claim). And while there’s little pre-Chávez data in the report for comparison, it’s shocking to see that the percent of undernourished population has actually increased from 11% (in pre-Chávez 1990-1992) to 18% (in post-Chávez 2000-2003). Or that GDP per capita has actually declined (from 1990 to 2004) by 1.2% even as the consumer price index has increased (in the same period) by 39.3% (it has increased by 21.8% just in 2003-2004). Hardly a “radical” or successful social transformation.
Carrión made a wonderful quip: Anytime a candidate asks that we call him “comandante,” we should be wary. I would add that the Spanish comandante (commander) is too similar to the German führer or Italian duce for my taste. I’m often confused as to why Bush should be condemned for his tendency to centralize government power in the White House (and he should be condemned), but Chávez should instead be praised for even bolder moves.
-----
1 LAPOP doesn’t track public support for candidates. Rather, it (like Latinobarómetro) tracks public support for democracy across the region.
