Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The salami tactics of Hugo Chavez

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In the first episode of the great Yes, Prime Minister, "The Grand Design," new PM Jim Hacker meets with the government's chief scientific advisor to discuss defence policy. The advisor, a hawkish Austrian, argues that the Soviet Union would use "salami tactics" to take over Europe, that is, a "slice-by-slice" plan with no one slice so grave as to compel the West (or the U.K., in this case) to respond militarily. (The 16 YPM episodes originally aired on the BBC from 1986-88.) At each slice/stage of the scenario, he presses Hacker -- What would it take for him to act? An incursion into West Berlin? Or would the Soviets have to go so far as to take over the Reform Club, one of London's old political establishments? Would he ever respond with nuclear weapons? Probably not.

My point here is not to make a case for military action against Venezuela, but it is clear that Hugo Chavez is using salami tactics in his drive to establish so-called "Bolivarean" socialism -- that is, his own national-socialist autocratic rule -- in that country. I wrote about this last week: "Sometimes revolution can be achieved without sudden, dramatic bloodletting." There are a number of different prongs to Chavez's continuing revolution, a number of slices. They may be examined individually, but they are best understood as variations of the same, as components of a single overarching plan. The nationalization of industry, the seizure of private property, repression of dissent and opposition, control of the media, one-party rule, rule by decree, and, soon, the removal of constitutional impediments to the permanent and perpetual rule of the leader himself.

The pattern is clear. One slice, then another, and another, and another, with no one slice so grave as to compel anyone to act (although there are courageous opponents of Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela, and there was a coup, if not one worthy of much admiration, in 2002). And there has been another, as the AP is reporting:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government as it develops a new curriculum and textbooks.

"Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.

All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.

A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and education minister Adan Chavez...

This is a serious slice, and there is a lot here: the submission of the private to the public, a leader speaking for "society," a new (re-)educational system, propaganda, threats of nationalization and state control, the concept of a "new citizen," nepotism. This could be 1984. There may not yet be any killing fields -- none that we know of -- but the rest is beginning to look a lot like the tyrannies, the totalitarian tyrannies, of the last century. Pol Pot, meet Hugo Chavez.

Some will accuse me of exaggeration, of misrepresentation. But therein lies the problem: Chavez is a smart guy, and he knows what he's doing, and he's doing it in such a way as to minimize suspicion and criticism, to come across as a man of the people, not the people's oppressor. He's not rolling into Caracas with tanks and death squads, but he doesn't need them. Not yet. Not with his salami tactics, grabbing slice after slice.

From populist to demagogue to tyrant, all with a bright red shirt, a huge smile, and some rousing anti-American rhetoric -- and with many in his own country and around the world giving him the benefit of the doubt. But all you have to do is put the slices back together to see what he's really up to.

And it isn't all fun and games.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

5 Comments:

  • Thank you - why has it taken so long? It’s far too late - if this had been some right wing leader you and the rest of the righteous left would have been on it months ago. Chavez is going to make Pinochet look like an amateur despot. And all your friends will throw up their hands and blame ‘bush,’ as they sip their Chilean Shiraz….

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:30 PM  

  • Well, I've been on this for a long time. As a liberal and a democrat, I oppose tyranny of both the left and the right, and I am vocal in my opposition.

    But I hardly think your criticism of my "friends" -- whomever they may be -- is fair. It was one of the leading neocons, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who made the argument that authoritarian regimes of the right are preferable to those of the left. In the U.S., Republicans and conservatives (the "right," if you will) were happy to support right-wing dictators like Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, and, yes, Saddam, among many others. Consider the record in Latin America and Southeast Asia. And the U.S., and specifically the American right, continues to support right-wing authoritarians. Consider the Bush family's close relationship with the Saudi royal family, for example.

    Meanwhile, I and my "friends" have been supporting development around the world, the construction of sustainable liberal democratic institutions, constitutionalism, and civil liberties. I acknowledge that some on the left have been soft on Chavez, happy to overlook what to me is the obvious, and that some on the left blame Bush for everything. But those people are not necessary my "friends". And, what's more, their arguments are often far more complex than what you suggest here.

    Finally, what's wrong with drinking a nice Chilean Shiraz? Or, as I intend to do this evening, a nice Chilean Cab? Chile, post-Pinochet, has developed into a successful liberal democracy. One that produces some very fine wine.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 5:41 PM  

  • I'm not saying Pinochet was all that good, but he was far better than the person he replaced. And he did start his country on the road to recovery. Also, Juan Batista is a bogeyman to many, but he was far superior to his successor.

    Let's not forget Ian Smith and his terrible successor.

    My point in all of this? You gotta be careful about one-dimensional attacks. Because the cure can be worse than the disease.

    My problem with many on the left is that they are totally clueless about tyranny. They are also clueless about local conditions and situations. You may not like the Egyptian government, but if it went, what would replace it would resemble Gaza. You want another Iran? Just overthrow any one of several middle eastern countries who are not now noted for being very human-rights oriented.

    BTW, "right-wing" and "left-wing" have been so abused as to be essentially meaningless anymore. Technically speaking, moving to the left means more government control and moving to the right means less. Given this, there is no such thing as a "right-wing" dictator. With one possible exception. That was when the father of Costa Rica's present constitution overthrew the country and held it as a dictator for 18 months to restore order before he allowed elections.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:52 AM  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:05 AM  

  • Well, I've been on this for a long time. As a liberal and a democrat, I oppose tyranny of both the left and the right, and I am vocal in my opposition.

    But I hardly think your criticism of my "friends" -- whomever they may be -- is fair. It was one of the leading neocons, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who made the argument that authoritarian regimes of the right are preferable to those of the left. In the U.S., Republicans and conservatives (the "right," if you will) were happy to support right-wing dictators like Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, and, yes, Saddam, among many others. Consider the record in Latin America and Southeast Asia. And the U.S., and specifically the American right, continues to support right-wing authoritarians. Consider the Bush family's close relationship with the Saudi royal family, for example.

    Meanwhile, I and my "friends" have been supporting development around the world, the construction of sustainable liberal democratic institutions, constitutionalism, and civil liberties. I acknowledge that some on the left have been soft on Chavez, happy to overlook what to me is the obvious, and that some on the left blame Bush for everything. But those people are not necessary my "friends". And, what's more, their arguments are often far more complex than what you suggest here.
    Sohbet

    chat

    arkadaşlık siteleri

    Finally, what's wrong with drinking a nice Chilean Shiraz? Or, as I intend to do this evening, a nice Chilean Cab? Chile, post-Pinochet, has developed into a successful liberal democracy. One that produces some very fine wine.''
    thanks bro.

    By Anonymous Sohbet, at 8:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home