Outlook: No Future for Chavez

Francis Fukuyama , professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University,was online Monday, Aug. 8, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article, History's Against Him ( Post, Aug. 7, 2006 ). Fukuyama says that Chavez's influence is not indicative of a larger trend in Latin America. To the contrary, there is no real future for his brand of "Chavismo" in the region. Venezuela's ability to sustain his economic and social policies has depended on its abundance of oil, something other nations like Bolivia, led by left-leaning Evo Morales , lack. Fukuyama says that while Chavez's influence is far from insignificant in Latin America, the future is not heading in the direction Chavez may foresee.

Read Fukuyama's previous Live Online discussion .

The transcript follows.

____________________

Orange, Va.: Interesting opinion piece in yesterday's Post. However, I must confess to being puzzled as to your rather blithe dismissal of Chavez as a dictator. Hard to see how any leader twice elected to office and also having survived a recall effort can be fairly described as such, even if the phrase "post-modern" is tossed in as a modifier. Isn't being elected like being a little bit pregnant, you either are or you aren't. Chavez certainly seems to meet the former status, especially given his multiple electoral successes.

Francis Fukuyama: Democracy in my view is more that being elected every four years. It also involves institutions of horizontal accountability like courts, rule of law, political parties, and independent civil society and media, and all of these things Chavez has steadily brought under his control. I wouldn't call him a dictator, but a quasi-democratic, quasi-authoritarian leader whose instincts incline him towards the latter position.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: Chavez believes he can spread Chavismo to other countries in Latin America (much like the Castros and Che Guevara believed they could spread socialism to the same region), why does he believe this will work, or is he just power hungry?

Francis Fukuyama: He has good reason to think it will work because, first, there is a lot of social discontent in Latin America that he speaks to, and second, because he has money from oil.

_______________________

Eastern Market, D.C.: Dr. Fukuyama,

I don't know any serious person who regards Hugo Chavez as anything more than a throwback to the old days of populist military dictators that were prevalent in Latin America for decades. There is nothing, other than his rather pompous statement that "Chavismo" is somehow post "end of history" and in the vanguard, that even suggests that he even knows how to spell "vanguard," in any language.

Francis Fukuyama: Chavez is a throwback, but with a new twist. Older dictators would simply take power through a military coup (something Chavez tried); he however creates greater legitimacy for himself by running for and winning elections. So in a sense the challenge of dealing with him is more complex.

_______________________

Capitol Hill, D.C.: You claim that Venezuela's economy has grown only because of oil. How would you explain the fact that non-oil sector growth is outpacing oil sector growth?

Francis Fukuyama: The Venezuelan economy tanked during the year of the PDVSA strike and recall movement, so it is natural that it should recover (just like Argentina in the past two years). But the overall performance of the Venezuelan economy from 1998-2004 was extremely poor.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How is Chavez anything but a natural reaction to the social inequality and international monetary economics that have been plaguing Venezuela and Latin America for the past 50 years?

Francis Fukuyama: If you want leaders on the left who are trying to respond to social inequality, Michelle Bachelet or Lula represent far more responsible alternatives. Chavez recalls a populist earlier history that most Latin Americans are eager to forget.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Your article seems to suggest the Chavez phenomenon will not last, but as long as oil prices remain high what is to stop it? Given the demand for oil will remain high for the foreseeable future, Chavez will have an endless surplus of cash to buy influence and weaponry.

What are the chances of Venezuela getting a seat on the U.N. Security Council?

Francis Fukuyama: To tell you the truth, the Post titled my piece "The End of Chavez," something I wouldn't have done. I actually think Chavez is fairly durable, even if oil prices come down to the $50 range in the next couple of years. Part of the problem is that the opposition is very weak and divided, so there is no real alternative for the foreseeable future.

I've been told that Chavez may not get the number of votes necessary for a Venezuelan security council seat, largely because of opposition in Europe and in other parts of Latin America.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Where would Chavez be today if the U.S. had simply chosen to ignore him?

Francis Fukuyama: I agree that Chavez benefits from overt American hostility, and certainly capitalized on our uncertain posture during the coup attempt. I think it would be a tremendous mistake to try to isolate him like we have tried to isolate Castro.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If you spend any time in the slums of Venezuela, you will hear over and over again that Chavez isn't the one driving Venezuelan policy. That this is a grassroots effort and Chavez is being allowed to be the voice of that effort.

I think it is a common mistake to focus our attention on Chavez the man, rather than recognize that these social movements have a very strong base and are addressing some crucial social issues that decades of Venezuelan leadership ignored.

You don't have to like Chavez, but as Americans we do have to respect the rights of Venezuelans to their own democracy.

Francis Fukuyama: I absolutely agree with this. As I said in my article, it is very important that people genuinely interested in democracy come up with a social agenda that will meet the needs of poor people. Some of Chavez's ideas in this area are good, but most are unsustainable absent oil rents. The challenge is to come up with policies that are sustainable, like the income transfer programs started in Mexico and Brazil.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why is Chavismo a threat, as you claim? I fail to see how Chavez has done anything to threaten his neighbors or the global community (something few of us could say about the Bush administration, sadly).

Francis Fukuyama: Chavez complains about American meddling, but that has not stopped him from intervening in the affairs of countries all over the region (e.g., giving money and sanctuary to FARC fighters from Colombia). As I said in the article, I believe that people are reacting to this overreaching.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Neo-liberal economic policies have led Latin America to have the highest degree of inequality in the world and Venezuela is one of the most unequal countries in Latin America. Isn't the Chavez phenomenon a reaction to neo-liberalism hat is erupting throughout South America? Rather than being doomed, Chavez has won numerous elections and survived coup attempts. Isn't it apparent that he is overwhelmingly popular in Venezuela and beyond.

Francis Fukuyama: Neo-liberalism is not remotely the cause of Venezuela's problems, because Venezuela never opened itself up to the global economy the way Chile or Mexico have done. It's the fact that they never tried this in the decades prior to the collapse of oil prices that accounts for the economic crisis they experienced during the 1980s. Moises Naim has a good piece on this in a past issue of Foreign Policy.

_______________________

West Orange, N.J.: From 1958 to 1988, Venezuela had a two-party democracy whose shortcomings and stagnation led to Chavez's election and re-elections. Reliance on oil, and its distortion of the rest of the economy, appear to be constants. Oil makes it cheaper to import everything or invest in property abroad. Most Venezuelan's still think that oil will make everyone rich. Whoever follows Chavez can scarcely avoid the same dilemma. Is there any votable formula or example to avoid this trap?

Francis Fukuyama: It's very hard, because it requires a government with political discipline to sequester natural resource rents and invest them rather than spending them on current consumption. The Norwegians do this, and the Chileans are doing something similar with their copper earnings, but the record isn't very good elsewhere in the developing world.

_______________________

Hillsdale, Mich.: Dr. Fukuyama, thank you for your article. You mentioned that the advance or at least the maintenance of 'Chavismo' depends upon high oil revenues. High oil revenues in turn depend at least in part upon disruption of other sources of oil, particularly in the Middle East, on the one hand, and upon continued expansion of Chinese industry, on the other. Is it then in Chavez's interests to assist radical Islamists/jihadists in that part of the world? We already know that he's made overtures to China.

Francis Fukuyama: Yes, his recent trip indicates his more global ambitions to unite as many anti-American countries as possible, even reprehensible dictatorships like Lukashenko's Belarus.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I've lived and worked in Venezuela for many years, although I'm back living in the states now. One of the things that is obvious inside Venezuela that I never see articulated in the press here, is that Chavez is the voice of a major civil rights movement that encompasses race, class and poverty--things that have rarely been openly discussed in Venezuela until the last decade.

Like our own civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, there is a period of pain and social tension, but when the immediate pain subsides, all Venezuelans will be better off and look back on this period with respect.

Francis Fukuyama: I hope you're right. The old order in Venezuela was nothing to write home about.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Fukuyama, the thesis of your op-ed yesterday is that the economic policies of Hugo Chavez are unsustainable, yet it is these same policies that seem to have reversed Venezuela's long economic decline (the economy shrank by 7% total per capita GDP from 1980-2000). Along with Argentina, Venezuela now has the strongest growth in Latin America. Considering that the "Washington Consensus" policies promoted by the IMF have largely failed the rest of the region (overall per capita GDP growth of 14% over the past 25 years compared to 82% from 1960-1980), what policies do you imagine would be more successful and sustainable for growth, alleviating poverty, and providing services to Venezuela's poor?

Francis Fukuyama: This would lead to a long discussion, but the Washington Consensus worked pretty well throughout the region. It was designed to fix the problems of out-of-control fiscal policy and monetary emissions that led to the debt crisis of the 1980s, and it did that pretty well. The problem is that there are institutional factors holding Latin America back, which "neoliberalism" didn't emphasize particularly. It's that institutional agenda that is critical now.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why would President Alvaro Uribe maintain close ties with a man that, as you claim, is offering refuge and support to the FARC? This allegation has been thrown around plenty, but I have yet to see evidence to substantiate it.

Francis Fukuyama: Uribe has to maintain good relations with Venezuela for economic reasons (eg the gas pipeline project) but there's no question the Colombians are very upset with Chavez for his interference in their affairs.

_______________________

Toronto, Ontario.: It is delusional to think, as you evidently do, that a successful new '21st century socialism' in Venezuela will not have a positive influence in the rest of the Americas, where the overwhelming majority have endured disenfranchisement, poverty and deprivation at the hands of their own corrupt elites, and the multi-national corporations, whose primary motivation is the exploitation of natural resources, cheap labour and whatever else they can get hands on.

It does not require deep intuition to comprehend that the poor will resist the factors that contribute to their poverty once given the encouragement and guidance from others who are in the process of doing the same.

The Venezuelan revolution will, therefore, spread like a prairie fire as its success grows, oil or no oil.

Francis Fukuyama: The tragedy of Latin America is that you get leaders like Chavez responding to the real problems of inequality, rather than people who could actually address the problem in the long run.

_______________________

Albany, Ga.: How widespread do you think is the American sentiment expressed by Pat Robertson?

Francis Fukuyama: My sense is that most Americans don't pay much attention to Latin America; I'd hope it's not widespread.

_______________________

Lake Charles, La.: It appears that Hugo Chavez wants to use his wealth to somehow rival the United States' geo-political and economic influence. He is competing with the wrong nation since the silent dragon, China, surpasses us. The dollar can't even compete with the Euro and our foreign policy is reprehensible. Perhaps Chavez is fortifying himself against paper tigers.

Francis Fukuyama: Chinese and European influence is evident all over Latin America, but I doubt the US will leave the scene anytime soon. It is true that our policy in the Middle East has not increased American prestige in the region, however.

_______________________

Ledroit Park, D.C.: I think you are right that some of Venezuela's social spending won't be maintained when oil prices drop, but I think its perfectly responsible to invest in schools, healthcare and military upgrades when you are flush with money.

At any rate, this is for the Venezuelans to decide. My biggest fear is intervention from the United States, particularly in the leadup to Venezuelans presidential elections. That will cause more damage to U.S. standing in Latin American than anything that Chavez ever says.

Francis Fukuyama: I agree in general, but social policy that is not sustainable or not well thought-out often makes people worse off than they were previously, like Argentina's Peronist labor laws, or the land reform attempted by the Peruvian junta in the 1960s.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You name Bachalet and Lula as better viable options for the poor than Venezuela. While I'm not sure that it is true, I do believe that if Chavez did not exist, the United States would be just as outspoken against Bachalet and Lula as they are toward Chavez now. To what extent do you feel that the presence of Chavez actually allows other leftist Latin American governments to exist with less pressure?

Francis Fukuyama: I really don't think we are looking for new enemies in Latin America. We have enough real ones elsewhere. America's problem now is a fundamental lack of serious interest in the region.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Your analysis seems spot on regarding the unlikely spread of Chavismo through Latin America. However, you also recognize that "oil, oil, oil" is the issue and this Nexus with the U.S. interest is where there is uncertainty. Do you think that there may be some form of U.S. intervention in Venezuela in order to ensure reliable access to oil and that this could create a circle the wagons effect in Latin America? Would the best course of action for the U.S. be to stay out of Venezuela's affairs even if it means not enjoying privileged and/or consistent access to the oil?

Francis Fukuyama: Intervention would be very foolish and is very unlikely. US foreign policy has a lot on its hands at the moment, and opening up another front in our hemisphere would be a very dumb thing to do.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Fukuyama, you state that Chavez's significance comes from his nation's oil wealth and without it he wouldn't be relevant. I respectfully disagree. While it is true that oil is a powerful resource that he has decided to stop squandering and use on behalf of his own people and poor people abroad, it is not the only resource that makes him significant. Recent polls carried out by opposition polling firms confirm that his electoral reforms provide more transparency and democracy in elections and Venezuelans now have more confidence in their elections than U.S. citizens. Their voting machines produce a paper and electronic trail and 55% of the votes will be audited in the upcoming presidential elections which will be monitored by international observers like the Carter Center and the OAS. So why the statements in your article to the contrary? How do you explain massive voter enfranchisement and voter turnout in record numbers in the last few years? The only thing different between Venezuela's use of its powerful resource-oil versus the U.S.'s is that oil doesn't kill people.

Francis Fukuyama: As you doubtless know, the Carter Center's certification of the referendum has been bitterly contested by much of the Venezuelan opposition, and particularly the independence and objectivity of the CNE. I do not have a strong opinion about this, but know that IFE in Mexico is a much better example of a truly independent electoral authority.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The rhetoric of Chavez borders on hysterical. Virtually every speech he engages in the most virulently anti-American demagoguery. While President Bush dismissed Chavez as a military threat, what are the chances that Chavez actually seeks a military conflict with the U.S. Attacking Israel has done wonders for Hezbollah, why not the same for Chavez assuming he is willing to sacrifice a few of his countrymen. By this, I'm thinking, hitting a U.S. naval ship in the Caribbean or something similar.

Francis Fukuyama: By and large, I think that Chavez is actually trying to goad us into opposition because that helps his own position internationally and domestically. That doesn't mean that there are some important red lines that he could step over, particularly with regard to cooperation with Iran on nuclear issues.

_______________________

Eastern Market, D.C.: Here's a rather obvious, if difficult, question: what is Chavez' relationship with Raul Castro? Clearly, Raul may or may not ever be in charge in Cuba, but have there been any communications or public utterances by Chavez regarding Castro's successor? Or doe Hugo, too, think Fidel will outlive his Galapagos turtle?

Francis Fukuyama: I don't know the answer to this.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: How do you think Venezuela's acceptance into Mercosur will affect the regional trading bloc and its relations with the U.S.?

Francis Fukuyama: Venezuela going into Mercosur will be extremely disruptive for their small and weak private sector. Their natural trading partners are in the Andean/Caribbean region, and their companies will have a lot of trouble competing against the Brazilians and Argentines. But perhaps this is Chavez's intention.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: I appreciate some of the nuance displayed in this conversation which I did not see in the op-ed, so my comment is more to the op-ed than anything said here online. I have to say that I'm generally distrustful of both the analysis and the reasons for presenting it.

First, it seems to ignore the huge plusses represented by Chavismo -- especially what I see as participatory democracy (in some towns following the Porto Alegre model) and a real sense of popular empowerment, and a consequent investment in the country's poor, rather than buying the contentment of the upper class. The flip side of this is buying into a lot of negatives that I keep hearing about but have never seen any evidence for, such as this business about funding the FARC.

Second, it seems to ignore the negative role played by the United States. Venezuela gets arms from Russia in part because it cannot get them from the U.S. The op-ed seems to say that Venezuela's current regime is destined to fall because of its own mistakes, but meanwhile, its expected fall is receiving plenty of outside help. Your op-ed seems, in other words, to be calling Chavez clumsy just as someone prepares to push him down a flight of stairs.

Francis Fukuyama: The last several responses all strike similar themes, which argue that the benefits of Chavez's social programs and the fact that Chavez was democratically elected outweigh his negatives.

I agree very much that what not just Venezuela but the rest of Latin America needs is renewed attention to the poor and the social agenda. But good social policy--land reform, educational reform, strengthening of various social safety nets--is very difficult to do in ways that actually promote equality of outcomes over the long run. What has happened in many Latin American countries in the past is that poorly thought-out social agendas have been promoted in flush times, but were not sustainable when the inevitable economic downturn came. Some worked better, like Colombia's land reform in the 1960s. As I said in the article, there's a lot of rethinking going on elsewhere in the region on these issues, but people don't pay attention because of the focus on Chavez.

Democracy is more than plebiscitary elections. It is also a system of institutions that provide horizontal accountability. Chavez is simply accumulating political power in a way that weakens institutions and ties Venezuela's future to his own personality.

_______________________

Naguanagua, Venezuela: What do you think will be the effect of the US$3 billion that Chavez is buying in the very powerful and sophisticated Russian war materiel will have in the regional political balance, specially the combat airplanes, helicopters and rockets?

Francis Fukuyama: It is hard for me to believe that Chavez actually wants to use these weapons against his neighbors (as opposed to buying the Russian vote for Venezuela's seat on the Security Council), but I suppose stranger things have happened.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Well 25 years of economic stagnation is a long time -- how many decades of this would you give "the Washington Consensus," or neoliberalism if you prefer, before you admit failure? Argentina piled up a $100 billion debt in the mid-90s, defaulted on it, and began its rapid recovery within three months. They have been growing at 9 percent annually for more than three years. Why should Latin Americans still be be paying the price for over-spending in the 70s, 30 years later? Isn't it time to admit that this long-term growth failure (not inequality, which has long preceded the neoliberal era)has something to do with Washington's recommended policies, and maybe that's why you are seeing all these elections of left governments in Latin America?

Francis Fukuyama: Argentina's crisis in 2001 had very complex causes, including the excessively rigid dollar peg (which the IMF did not, incidentally, support), the spending race between Menem and Duhalde that was the outgrowth of their contest for leadership of the PJ, and a variety of other factors. Chile, which followed the neoliberal agenda most closely (though not slavishly, as in the case of its capital controls) has been far and away the best economic performer. Brazil has also done much better since Cardoso's reforms of the 1990s.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us today.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.