Major General Henry Rangel, Chief of the Strategic Operational Command of the Venezuelan army, declared last week in an interview with the daily newspaper, Ultimas Noticias, that the army was “married” to President Hugo Chávez’s political project and that if the opposition won the 2012 elections, the army would not accept such a result. For good measure, he suggested that, were this to happen, a bloodbath could occur in the country.
Popular reaction in such a deeply polarized country has been understandably divided, ranging from extreme outrage to confusion to unbridled chavista enthusiasm.
Unsurprisingly, the Venezuelan opposition has reacted with horror and indignation at this implicit, a priori violation of the constitution, which in its Article 328 states that the army is “an essentially professional institution, without political militancy… In the fulfilment of its functions, it is at the exclusive service of the Nation and in no case, [at the service] of any political person or party.”
The confusion has arisen as a result of speculation as to why General Rangel would have made such a provocative statement. Apologists have argued that he was quoted out of context and that he might have been referring to the hypothesis that a new government might seek to purge the army of Chávez loyalists. On the other hand, apart from the obvious intent to curry favour with the President, there is a strong body of opinion that believes that the general was seeking support at the highest levels, in the face of accusations of corruption and narcotrafficking ties.
Even before this incident, General Rangel was a controversial character. He was implicated in the infamous suitcase scandal, three years ago, when Argentine customs authorities discovered a suitcase containing almost US$800,000 arriving on a private flight from Caracas to Buenos Aires, allegedly en route to the electoral campaign fund of then candidate, now President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. At the time, Mr Rangel was head of the notorious national secret police agency, DISIP, and was widely regarded as the man responsible for hiding the trail to the presumed source of the funds, the Venezuelan national oil company, PDVSA. In addition, the US Treasury has accused him of being linked, along with other Venezuelan military officers, to narcotrafficking and giving support to the Colombian rebel group, the FARC.
President Chávez though has been unable to conceal his delight with his loyal general. On November 11, at a meeting of his Council of Ministers, he not only promoted Mr Rangel to the highest Venezuelan military rank of ‘General in Chief’ but also expressed his total support for him and hurled insults at retired officers who had taken issue with the general’s partisan comments. Mr Chávez even poured scorn on the secretary general of the Organization of American States, the Chilean socialist politician, José Miguel Insulza, who had said that statements such as the general’s were “unacceptable” and could not be tolerated by any democratic government.
For President Chávez, the criticisms directed at General Rangel are “a campaign of infamy” waged by those who would seek to overthrow his government and smear the reputation of a worthy soldier and the entire “Bolivarian” army. Perhaps his rhetoric and his emotions might have got the better of him, but Mr Chávez also accused Mr Insulza of allying himself with the “national oligarchy” along with certain other international actors: “His unfortunate statements are nothing but disrespect for our sovereignty, knowing full well, as a diplomat… the consequences that a gratuitous and irresponsible statement could provoke.”
One might well ask whose statements are really “unfortunate.” And the President would do well to note that the Socialist International, the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties, has also called General Rangel’s comments “unacceptable,” saying that they “violate democratic principles and the political rights of citizens.” And notwithstanding the highly charged political atmosphere that he foments in Venezuela, his reaction does nothing to convince observers that he can, by temperament and ideology, fully embrace fundamental democratic principles and citizens’ rights.
Maybe President Chávez is having some difficulty coming to terms with the results of the September 26 legislative elections, which saw him obtaining a reduced majority in the National Assembly. Clearly, he is already in campaign mode for 2012. But, from a Guyanese perspective, such behaviour should offer no comfort to anyone who might regard him as a friendly neighbour.
