Venezuela: A necessary reappraisal

Back in 2009, on our first visit to the Ecuadorian capital Quito, we heeded the well-intentioned advice of some fellow travellers and opted to stay in the ‘safer’ north of the city – an area home to many backpacker hostels.

"Do you want to go ahead with this?"

What we encountered there, however, was anything but a feeling of security, reinforced by hostel and restaurant owners’ warnings not to venture out alone, if indeed at all, after dark. 

The fact that the majority of people we spoke to in the hostel we stayed in had been mugged on the streets right outside our lodgings obviously did nothing to ease concerns.

As a result, our stay in the city was short-lived; we were quite happy to leave in all honesty.

Two years later, in a less-planned stop in the city and being led by an Argentinean bus companion, we found ourselves camped up in a mediocre ‘hospedaje’ (hostel/hotel) in the historic centre of the city – dodgier territory than the north of the metropolis according to many.

This time, though, we experienced a completely different, far friendlier side to the place. Within hours after arriving (we got there late in the evening, in darkness, at that) we found ourselves drinking beers in a rough-and-ready house of some local. In another context, considering the area we were in, these guys would be seen as people to be avoided. 

This set the tone for what turned out to be a hugely enjoyable, trouble-free few days in Quito.

So while first impressions of a place or a person can at times be a good guide to the whole picture, this isn’t always the case. Very often such things are context and time-dependent.

Bearing that in mind, we made no secret of our negative introduction to Venezuela last year (see: http://bit.ly/OLR2Ev). 

In many ways, our experiences back then sat nicely with the accepted Western narrative that the place is dangerous, politically insecure and best avoided – even though we did enter the country rather excitedly and with an open mind.

Thus, this time it was with a bit of nervousness, tempered by stubbornness and a sense of some adventure, that we hit for Colombia’s eastern neighbour for a visa run. The rough plan on departing Bogotá was to get in and out of the place as quickly as possible.

Our anxiousness increased when, on arrival in the city of Cúcuta on the Colombian side of the border, the guys who exchanged our pesos for Venezuelan bolivares gave us plastic bags and told us to stow our cash in them and put them in our shoes for safety. (The biggest problem in the end was that this practice almost rendered the notes unusable from the damage inflicted by being wrapped up in our sweaty runners.)

Yet practically from the get-go, the coldness of the citizens and feelings of insecurity that prevailed during our first visit were replaced by very helpful, friendly people and a relaxed general atmosphere.

To the left ...

... and to the right

Yes, the physical signs of the recent, highly contentious general election (for a recap, see: http://bit.ly/Yy86zJ) narrowly and controversially won by the late Hugo Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, are there to be seen. 

But it’s not – at least openly and at ground level amongst the populace (at a political level and below the surface for some citizens we spoke to, deep divisions are apparent*) – a case of a dangerously divided country where opposing sides don’t mix.

What we found in the two places we stayed, firstly San Cristóbal and then Mérida**, were easy-going people (the small bar brawl we witnessed on our first night aside – sure a beer bottle being hurled at somebody is nothing unusual to us) going about their daily business.

Wherever we stay we like to be able to venture out at night feeling relatively safe, sampling a few beers and chatting to the locals in little ‘tienda’ bars. Thankfully, that was no problem this time, unlike Maracaibo last year. 

OK, our hotel in San Cristóbal did have a 10.30 pm curfew, but that was more an individual choice rather than a rule from what we could gather. Plus, considering the times we tend to retire at night nowadays, this lights-out policy wasn’t a big issue.

Of course, we did learn from our first experience in the country as regards the currency. 

So this time we had plenty of cash to convert into bolivares as opposed to going to ATMs where the value is at least four times less than on the street (Colombian pesos are fine to exchange along the border and that’s where you’ll get the best price). Hence, in most aspects, it’s much cheaper to get by compared to Colombia.

On that theme, practically every shop/restaurant displays the prices of its goods – prices that are trustworthy and accepted across the board from our observations. In other words, haggling isn’t really done or needed in the majority of places – the price is the price and it’s usually satisfactory. 

Now, we don’t mind haggling, but in many street stores in Colombia you can’t help but wonder if they are charging you a foreigners’ price no matter what you pay. The aversion here to publicly displaying prices always leaves you in a bit of doubt.

"Sorry, where would we find some chicken?"

You will still find what seems to be official Venezuelan suspicion towards foreigners – again in sharp contrast to the usual Colombian experience. 

On the internal bus journeys where the National Guard did ID checks, as foreign passport holders we were the only ones taken off and given a pretty decent interrogation with our bags thoroughly checked. With nothing to hide it wasn’t something that bothered us really.

That was, of course, taking for granted that the officers were genuine – in this case, they seemed to be. Considering, though, the pronouncements coming from the country’s leader as regards some foreigners’ intentions in Venezuela (mostly aimed at the USA, albeit), you can never rule out a bent military official doing something untoward in the name of patriotism.

If, however, at heart they are in the same mould as the vast majority of civilians we met in San Cristóbal and Mérida, such a scenario is unlikely. 

In any case, going by our adventures this time around, the rewards far outweigh the risks.

___________________
* Some Venezuelan politicians take very seriously the idea of ‘fighting’ for your country, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKUVdw9mgeY

**Mérida is something of a hidden gem from what we experienced. We plan to bring you more on that next.

Venezuela: Deepening the divide?

It’s just over five months since we wrote that the time, perhaps, was right for a change of the guard in Venezuela.

That was, of course, ahead of the October elections when the-then incumbent president, the late Hugo Chávez, was facing his toughest democratic challenge for the country’s top job since he first took office in 1999.

Past & present: Cházez (l) & Maduro (from paraguay.com).

Despite leading a solid campaign which garnered widespread support – his 45% share of the votes testament to that – challenger Henrique Capriles fell short; Chávez retained his post with 54% support. 

Venezuela, especially the current administration’s key voter base of the lower/working classes, clearly said it wasn’t ready to say goodbye to ‘Socialism for the 21st Century’ at that time.

So as the country prepares once again to go the polls on 14 April – constitutionally necessary following Chávez’s death – is there any reason to think that the challenger can turn the tables in just six months?

Undeniably, the ruling party is weaker without its charismatic and hugely popular deceased leader calling the shots. You don’t lose a chief such as Chávez without this having some adverse effect. However, it might be too soon to see that cost just yet.

It’s difficult to improve on an 80% turnout, as was the case in October, but if there are new votes and voters to be found, they may go the way of president-in-charge and Chavez’s ‘anointed’ successor, Nicolás Maduro. While a dull figure compared to his predecessor – who wouldn’t be – he should still be in a position to benefit from Chávez’s popularity, with the former leader’s figure still shining bright for many. 

Indeed, early opinion polls suggest Maduro has a lead of up to 15%. If this was to be the actual result on polling day, it would be a bigger endorsement for the socialist government than that it received just months ago.

In such a politically divided country – you are either with the revolution or against it, there is very little room for those in the middle ground – it’s hard to see where Capriles can add to the support he gained last year. 

Focusing the campaign on the abuses of the Chávez administration – the more than questionable human rights record, an increase in homicides and an absence of general security, press and judicial interference, currency & economic problems – abuses highlighted by a number of non-governmental organisations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, is one avenue of attack.

'Black gold' on the Colombian-Venezuelan border.

There is also the issue of Venezuela’s over-reliance on oil to keep the economy moving. In the short-to-medium term, this is fine, but, like the oil resources themselves, how sustainable is it?

Yet, for the thousands of people who have seen an unprecedented rise in their general standard of living and their access to education and health improve under the current socialist government, this approach in focusing on other policy areas, however justified, is unlikely to yield much electoral dividend.

What’s more, with a population – especially those in support of the revolution – seemingly convinced by the political elite that the nation, at any moment, could be attacked by ‘Western imperialists’, anti-US discourse continues to excite and impress many. 

Thus, the them-versus-us mentality, which Capriles hopes to weaken should he get elected, has been promoted heavily by his opponent.

However, for any neutral observer, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you lie, Maduro’s inconsistent and lurid pronouncements in this regard in recent days have been nothing but playing to the gallery. 

From firstly claiming there was a CIA/Pentagon plan to assassinate his rival Capriles in order to cause chaos in the country, he flipped the next day to a story that the US was encouraging the opposition to withdraw from the elections. If the White House is planning something, it doesn’t seem to be very consistent if Maduro is to be believed.

Throwing all these factors together, it is difficult to see anything other than a relatively comfortable victory for the interim president.

Indeed, for the time being, for the general stability of the region, especially in relation to the border with Colombia, a Maduro victory might be for the best. 

If the socialist revolution was stopped in its tracks now, democratically, it’s unclear how the current administration and its supporters would react, especially so soon after Chávez’s death. A second defeat in six months for Capriles would no doubt leave him and his followers disillusioned, but a violent reaction to such an outcome is unlikely.

In terms of Colombian relations, with the ongoing, largely fragile peace talks continuing between President Juan Manuel Santos’s government and the left-wing guerrillas Farc, instability in Venezuela is the last thing that process needs.

Support: But is it enough for Capriles?

Yes, it’s widely accepted here that the Bolivarian Republic has supported the Farc rebels in terms of ammunition and security, but the fear is that if an unfavourable government for them was to be installed in Venezuela, it may have a negative influence on the peace negotiations.

That’s despite the fact that the majority of Colombians, arguably the most pro-USA Latin America country with a history of centre-right administrations, would find more favour, in general, with Capriles in power than Maduro.

Whatever the case, it appears the mantra from the current office-holders in Venezuela, that the country’s ‘Socialism for the 21st Century’ is bigger than one man, is set to be put to a stern test in the coming months and years. 

It may be more of the same after 14 April but perhaps with even deeper division.

*For another Venezuelan related article see 'Venezuela - South America's North Korea?' http://bit.ly/OLR2Ev

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