You are in:
- Archives » 2006 » May 2006
Wherever Hugo, We Go
Thankfully not everyone on the British left has joined in this week's Hugo Chavez love-in - surely the most embarrassing get together of 1970s and 80s rejects since someone decided it was a good idea to reunite the Sex Pistols for one last tour.
Since the collapse of Communism and the rise of liberal democracy in regions previously benighted by totalitarianism, sentimental leftists have been deprived of hard-man leaders with the power to inflict their ideas on countries. Plenty of theory - there's been no shortage of theory - but precious little practice. Perhaps the shortage of genuine authoritarian Marxist governments explains why large numbers of activists have thrown their sympathies in with Islamist extremists?
Anyway, they've got a real live one in the shape of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Better, he's called George Bush an "asshole" - singlehandedly saying in one word what increasingly hopeless Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell has been doing every day for five years. The Guardian could have saved itself a lot of money by employing Chavez as a one-off instead of keeping Bell in work. At least Hugo is funny.
Thankfully, there have been voices of dissent. The excellent Ian Buruma (in the Times) places British Chavistas as the latest in a long and shameful line of left-leaning intellectuals dazzled by authoritarian tough guys:
"Stalin was applauded by Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Mao was visited by a constant stream of worshippers from the West, some of whose names can still produce winces of disgust in China. Castro has basked for years in the adulation of such literary stars as Jose Saramago and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Even Pol Pot found favour among several well-known journalists and academics."
Sure, Chavez is no Pol Pot - though he's working on being the next Fidel. But what has he got that attracts people like Harold Pinter and Nadime Gordimer? Is it the heady whiff of macho caudillo, so powerful in comparison to the soft, consensus-seeking social democrats of Europe?
Indeed, EURSOC can't remember former French Socialist president Lionel Jospin receiving such a rapturous welcome in London, or fellow centre-left leader Gerhard Schröder being feted with bands and adoring fans. Never mind any Danish or Dutch social democrat - all of whom have more to contribute to Britain's debate than Chavez.
Why not give Norway's premier a hero's welcome - after all, here's one country which has used its oil wealth to enrich its people without resorting to authoritarianism?
All the above, however, are firm democrats. And that might be the point of the adulation from the intellectual left. Here's Buruma, on Tariq Ali,
"As Ali, the ubiquitous applauder of Third World blowhards, put it: “Democracy in Venezuela, under the banner of the Bolivarian revolutionaries, has broken through the corrupt two-party system favoured by the oligarchy and its friends in the West.” But whether the corrupt two-party system will be replaced by a functioning democracy is the question."
So what replaces the two party system? The multi-party system, like we see in Italy or to a lesser degree France? Or does Ali favour a one-party system?
Of course, Chavez's anti-Americanism helps: "The common element of radical Third Worldism is an obsession with American power, as though the US were so intrinsically evil that any enemy of the US must be our friend, from Mao to Kim Jong-il, from Fidel Castro to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
Third world tough guys like to ask western intellectuals to join advisory boards or join them for beanos, so there's a certain degree of flattery involved: Which British government in its right mind would request Harold Pinter's services? One can't help but be reminded of the American poet's adoration of Italian dictator Mussolini, who convinced Pound he had read his poetry.
Elsewhere, Labour's former Europe minister Denis MacShane has a go at Chavez in the Guardian (which has been cheerleading Chavez's visit). It's not often that EURSOC can find a kind word for MacShame. As Europe minister, his exasperation with Eurosceptics suggested he wouldn't mind introducing some Chavez-style reorganisation of the media himself. However, he's spot on on the union-bashing, Mugabe-loving Venezuelan leader. Incidentally, if you can bring yourself to read the comments the Guardian has taken to posting under each op-ed, you'll get an idea of the temperature of the Chavez love-in in the UK: MacShame is roundly whipped for his views.
Oliver Kamm concentrates on the other main player in the Chavez visit - Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London. Chavez, writes Kamm, is just Ken's latest gaffe:
"A MONTH after likening the massacre at Tiananmen Square to the poll tax riot, Ken Livingstone has ventured another judgment on international politics: Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela, is “a beacon of democracy and social progress in the Latin America”.
(...)
"The adversary culture that recoils from its own society and transfers its yearnings to far-away continents is always with us, and rarely learns from its disappointments. President Chávez’s regional significance is likely to be ephemeral. But as a symbiosis of blustering demagogue and credulous venerator, the performance of President and Mayor is depressingly familiar."
As Buruma notes, Chavez is by no means the worst character to find himself feted by western intellectuals. He isn't even a proper dictator. And, in the grand scheme of things, he may contribute to instability in the region, perhaps even provoke the odd coup or assassination attempt, but Chavisme is not exportable. Chavez's supporters may be nostalgic for more bloodthirsty leaders, but they're not likely to attempt to blow up the Paris metro, behead infidels or release poison into the New York water supply, never mind build a dirty bomb: It's better that our intellectuals distract themselves with Hugo's nostalgia trip than indulge their more disturbing fascination with Islamist extremism.
Let them enjoy their pet caudillo.
