[LINK] "Chávez's Revolution Will Not Be Criticized"

[rfmcdonald]

Over at the Huffington Post, Robert Amsterdam helps to take on Venezuela's authoritarian populist leader Hugo Chávez.

An important aspect of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's political survival over these past ten years has been a carefully managed ignorance amongst the international community. While there may be some awareness of attacks on journalists, blacklists, political prisoners, and the occasional wielding of the authoritarian sledgehammer, Chávez and co. are counting on the majority of us to be just lazy enough not to look beyond the myths of democracy, social justice, and the general idea we prefer to hold of Venezuela as a socialist utopia.

I don't doubt that despite the unprecedented steps toward authoritarianism taken by the Chávez regime in recent months (including the shutting down of 32 radio stations, an indoctrinating education bill, and removal of political powers from democratically elected opponents), that I will continue to hear happy stories about Venezuela's peaceful and prosperous social democracy from Washington to Brasilia to Paris. It's all too often cited as an excuse why no one should act. After all, Caracas spends hundreds of millions on campaigns to make sure this happens.

One person who was decidedly not too lazy to take a closer look at the political ambiguities of Venezuela is Brian A. Nelson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University whose recent book The Silence and the Scorpion is a must read for anyone seeking to get an unbiased and comprehensive account of the two most controversial days of the Chávez presidency. Nelson's book provides an hour-by-hour breakdown of the events beginning April 11th, 2002 told through many different voices of witnesses and participants from both the pro-Chávez and opposition camps, as the two massive marches clashed violently on the avenues leading up to the presidential palace.

[. . .]

"If you believe that the opposition initiated the violence; that they placed gunmen at the head of the march and wanted to cause deaths to spark a coup, then Hugo Chávez is a victim," wrote Nelson in his email to me. "But if you believe that the Chávez government initiated the violence; that the National Guard troops and loyalists opened fire on the march to keep it from surrounding the palace, then Hugo Chávez is not the victim, he is the aggressor. (...) If this is what you believe, then Hugo Chávez has lost his legitimacy and he should, at the very least, be placed on trial."

Go read Amsterdam's piece in its entirety.