Notwithstanding the fact that the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, was capable of deeply dividing public opinion both at home and abroad, there is no gainsaying the massive outpouring of grief in Venezuela and across Latin America and the Caribbean on his death at the relatively young age of 58.
This newspaper has, over the years, published several editorials sceptical of Mr Chávez’s policies and intentions, particularly because, as we once pointed out, he was such “an unpredictable and volatile force sitting on our western frontier.” But this is not the time to speak ill of the dead, and the grief of the majority of the Venezuelan people who voted for him in the country’s October election should be respected.
After Mr Chávez’s state funeral today, as Venezuela prepares itself for new elections within 30 days, there will be time enough to consider the charismatic leader’s legacy, with especial regard to the survival of ‘chavismo’ – the movement founded on his cult of personality and his ideology of ‘21st century socialism’ loosely based on the ideas of his mentor, Fidel Castro, and improbably, his hero, Simón Bolívar – and his unfinished ‘Bolivarian’ revolution.
In the meantime, however, the uncertainty that prevailed during the deterioration of the president’s health continues to reign in Venezuela. There is perhaps no better example of this than the announcement on Tuesday by Foreign Minister Elías Jaua that Vice-president Nicolás Maduro, Mr Chávez’s heir apparent, would assume the presidency until the elections, even though others contend that, according to the constitution, the president of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello – himself apparently a man with presidential ambitions – should assume the leadership of the country. But the chavistas appear to have closed ranks, for now, in the interests of solidarity and continuity.
One thing is clear though: with the populist authoritarian Mr Chávez no longer physically present to impose his will on the government and the country, his successor as president will be severely challenged to maintain unity and preserve his legacy, from his social programmes aimed at poverty eradication and greater equity, to the economic largesse of PetroCaribe and the grandiose Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (Alba).
According to Peter Hakim, former president of the Inter-American Dialogue think-tank, “He dominated politics so thoroughly that it is impossible to forecast what comes next. He was the commanding political presence, virtually the only governing authority in the country.” Nevertheless, Mr Chávez’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) is expected to capitalise on its successes in the recent presidential and gubernatorial elections, the advantages of incumbency and the sympathy vote, to defeat an opposition yet to recover from its losses.
In a context of weak institutions, serious economic problems, rising violent crime, signs of factionalism within the governing party and the ever present fear of civil unrest, however, Mr Maduro, if elected to the presidency as widely expected, may yet find it difficult to hold the government together and ensure a measure of economic and political stability. Why, even Mr Chávez was challenged in the latter regard.
Hugo Chávez was a larger-than-life figure but a hugely polarising one. In death, as in life, he will no doubt continue to polarise opinion, even as the process of mythification gathers momentum. A large part of his legacy, unfortunately, is that Venezuela itself will continue to be a deeply divided society in the short to medium term. Conventional political wisdom would suggest that dialogue and compromise should be the order of the day to ensure stability and progress. But we know how difficult that can be to achieve and, somehow, with the wounds caused by Mr Chávez’s 14-year rule and traumatic illness and death still raw, and another bruising and polarising election soon to come, it will be some time yet before our western neighbour enjoys the level of stability with which we can feel comfortable.
