Time for change

These are heady times in international politics. Top billing is, of course, the race for the White House, where it’s difficult even for those with a limited interest in it not to get caught up in the whole fanfare. Pretty much all media outlets across the globe are following the unfolding story. 

Meanwhile, closer to us here in Colombia, there's the Venezuelan presidential election – perhaps as equally important, if not more so, for this region than the USA one.

Will Venezuelans go left again or take a slight move to the right?

The fact that both countries are having leadership contests within a few weeks of each other is about as far as you can go with the comparisons between them. 

For one, Venezuela’s incumbent, Hugo Chávez appears to be in a more comfortable position as regards his re-election compared to Barack Obama – although the challenger, Henrique Capriles, is putting up a pretty impressive fight against the 14-year-long rule of the current administration. 

 

Part of Chávez’s appeal is that rather than just talk about it and despite his many detractors and questionable methods, he has arguably done more for the poor and vulnerable in his jurisdiction than Obama has in the "land of the free". 

Of course, the Venezuelan leader has had much more time and less interference in implementing his vision – ‘socialism for the 21st century’ – than the under-fire United States chief-of-staff.

The word vision here is key. Barack Obama entered the Oval Office just under four years ago promising much and offering a different path – remember, ‘change we can believe in’. For many US citizens, though, it has been far from the fairytale term they were hoping for. 

 

Once the bounce of having a novel, coloured president that was anything but George W. Bush wore off, things began to get a bit more serious for Obama. As many democratically bound and elected politicians discover, implementing change can be slow, mightily slow. 

Throw in the fact that no sooner is a new government sworn in then it begins thinking of its re-election, usually four to five years down the line. So even if you have a visionary leader or administration, the ‘must not harm my chances of getting back in’ mindset takes hold early on.

This sort of thinking is usually to the detriment of a leader’s or administration’s vision, assuming, that is, one exists. 

Ideally, elected governments should make decisions based on a clear plan that they have for the area they govern – regardless if this means that they might alienate or upset some potential voters. This is what doing things in the national interest or, perhaps of greater consequence is these times, the global interest should be about. 

Alas, what we regularly see nowadays are electorally charged policies and decisions, ones aimed at garnering the most votes. Or worse still, we get no clear policies or decisions at all.

The first debate went to Romney (L). Can he deny Obama four more years?

Take the first of the presidential debates between Obama and the Republican challenger Mitt Romney. 

The Obama strategy – we’ll assume he had one – appeared to be about talking specifics, giving hard facts and figures where he could. Romney on the other hand went down the catchy, well delivered but rehearsed, soundbite route – attacking the President on borrowing billions from China was certainly playing to the gallery. 

The actual amount of real substance and truth there was to all Romney’s utterances is questionable. He stuck to the ‘keep it simple, stupid’ mantra and it worked for him. The masses seemed to love it.

The masses, though, are not always right. As Winston Churchill reputedly once said, 'The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.' 

Collectively, we don’t always make the best decisions on far-reaching issues. On occasions, consensus is a luxury we should avoid. 

Put it this way, a global survey of popular restaurants would put McDonald’s high up on the list, but is it the best food for us to be eating regularly?

Furthermore, when it comes to elections, many democratic nations implore us to vote – ‘it doesn’t matter how you vote, just make sure you do’ is regularly trumpeted. 

So going by that advice, even if you know absolutely nothing about what you’re doing, just go and do it anyway. That’s not a very smart way of going about things, is it? 

If you really don’t have an opinion or an interest or knowledge on the vote at hand then it’s best to stay at home on polling day. Just because you are entitled to have your say doesn’t mean you must.

That aside, time will tell if the undecided US electorate has been swung by Romney’s smooth talking in the first debate. He may have what it takes to be a good president but relinquishing Obama of his duties right now would seem to be a little premature. 

Legally freed of the four-more-years syndrome we might get a better idea of Obama’s vision – he can go gung-ho in implementing policies without the worry of re-election hanging over him. At least that should be the case.

Will it be exit stage left for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez?

So while the current White House administration is looking for more time to implement its changes, in Venezuela, as far as most outside observers are concerned, it appears well and truly time for change. 

Even if you agree with Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution, one man at the top for 14 years is long enough. What he should have done is stepped aside and appointed a mouthpiece successor, Vladimir Putin style. 

That way the revolution could continue and he could still call the shots. It’s obviously hard, though, to walk away from the power drug. And, for better or worse, the Venezuelan electorate look set to continue to feed his habit.

*For an earlier take on our thoughts about Venezuela, see: http://bit.ly/OLR2Ev