Nothing could have better symbolized the profound divisions Venezuela is currently enduring than having each side of the current deep political rupture holding their own music concerts 300 meters apart on either side of a bridge linking Venezuela and Colombia. On the border between the two countries, a convoy of humanitarian aid has become another pawn in the struggle for power between the largely discredited president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and the self-proclaimed, though widely internationally recognized, Juan Guaido. It seems that the observation of Khalil Gibran, the Lebanese-American writer and poet, that “music is the language of the spirit. It opens the secret of life bringing peace, abolishing strife,” is falling on deaf ears right now in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
After all, the most damning verdict on the situation in Venezuela has been passed not by the rigged ballot box that brought back to power the current corrupt and incompetent president Maduro, and not even by the mass demonstrations against him — but by the 3 million-plus citizens who have voted with their feet and left the country in the last couple of years. This amounts to around 10 percent of the population who have just given up on the country and opted to look for refuge in neighboring states.
What is striking about the current crisis in Venezuela is how a country with endless economic potential — one in possession of natural resources almost second to none, including the biggest known oil reserves in the world — has nevertheless seen millions of people flee, while those who stayed behind are suffering from poverty and even hunger. During a government-organized demonstration in support of Maduro, one of the demonstrators told the BBC World Service that the only reason she was there was to enjoy a free meal that was promised by the organizers. How tragic for a country that exports $45 billion of crude and refined petroleum annually.
Any close look at the situation would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the current deprivations suffered by the Venezuelan people can be attributed not only to the country’s failing, utterly incompetent and corrupt dictatorial government, but also, to a considerable extent, its toxic relations with the US. The latter is a close neighbor that regards Venezuela as belonging to its sphere of influence and as a major source of its oil, and has never shied away from intervening in Venezuela’s domestic affairs.
To a large extent, the sorry state of Venezuela is not that different from the situation that other countries in Latin America have endured over the last 200 years, since the Bolivarian struggle to bring an end to colonial rule swept through the continent. That movement managed to achieve self-determination across Latin America, but has not necessarily ensured stability, good governance and the wellbeing of its people. The region has suffered from constant swings between corrupt old nobility dictatorships, coups, military juntas, and left-leaning revolutions that also ended in dictatorships. Though the alleged Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chavez claimed to be a Marxist one, Marx himself was very critical of Simon Bolivar — a native of Caracas and a leader of the Venezuelan independence movement — as representing the interests of the Creole nobility, not of the masses. While many historians might dispute this, it is doubtful whether either Marx or Bolivar would have volunteered to serve as advocates for Chavez, and definitely not for his successor Maduro, in the court of history.
The sorry state of Venezuela is not that different from the situation that other countries in Latin America have endured over the last 200 years
Yossi Mekelberg
Chavez’s socialist ticket, which won him power in the elections 20 years ago, was as critical of the imposition of the Washington Consensus and the role of the International Monetary Fund, whose reforms hurt mainly the poor and the lower middle classes, as it was of the Venezuelan government of the time. He might have been well-intentioned to begin with, but his lack of any organized and coherent plan to move the country toward a more equal, fair and just society ended in amassing a huge external debt, reliance on the military to secure his regime, and widespread unchecked corruption. All of this was accompanied by an anti-American rhetoric that played into the hands of the hawks in Washington, who aimed to get rid of such a leader with Marxist-socialist inclinations.
Yet, Venezuela’s fast deteriorating living conditions, followed by a complete loss of direction and a significant increase in human rights violations, have only worsened since Chavez’s demise. A major contributory factor was no doubt the 2016 slump in oil prices, compounded by earlier heavy borrowing, which sent the economy into freefall and resulted in 2018’s inflation rate of 1.3 million percent, the collapse of the local currency, and a prospering black market.
Last May’s elections were marred by vote rigging, and the Organization of American States (OAS) declared the results illegitimate. Hence the US and many other countries refused to recognize Maduro’s presidency when he was sworn in last month. That contributed to the emergence of Guaido, the leader of Venezuela’s National Assembly, who declared himself interim president. This would not have taken place without the active encouragement of Washington and some other neighboring countries, including Colombia and Brazil. But, disastrous as Maduro’s leadership is, this intervention would have been more credible had it enjoyed wider international support, including UN backing. UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy warned the world that: “Sanctions which can lead to starvation and medical shortages are not the answer to the crisis in Venezuela.” In other words, he fears that, once again, political forces, domestic and external, are battling with one another on the backs of the Venezuelan people.
The current situation of two presidents and two governments is unsustainable and, unless a wider coalition can be formed to initiate a transition period, there is a real danger that civil war will break out; one that may well see foreign forces involved. If this happens, we will hear no music playing on either side of the border, just the sound of gunfire.
• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg