Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez, Compared
Created by John Eipper on 12/23/18 11:38 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez, Compared (José Ignacio Soler, Venezuela, 12/23/18 11:38 am)

I enjoyed Gary Moore's post on Evo Morales and his "successful-looking socialism" (December 19th).

The parallels between Evo and Chávez are very illustrative to better understand the Venezuelan and Bolivian processes. I would like to contribute a different perspective to the analysis. There are great differences as well as similarities between the two regimes.

I believe the first step in this comparison would be the political thinking and profiles of both leaders. The second would be to describe the similarities and differences in the roads they took in social and economic development.

Both were of humble origin, Evo an indigenous peasant, unionist and communard, a social organizer; Chávez the son of elementary school teachers and a mediocre military officer. Their knowledge of socialist theory was very limited if any, and their adoption of this ideology came almost accidentally. Evo's political doctrine is based on a sort of nationalistic-indigenous claim, Chávez's doctrine on a sort of nationalistic and anti-capitalist-imperialistic credo. But likely their main "political" motivation was more social resentment instead of social justice or progressive social demands. They lack economic knowledge and socialist theoretical clarity. Theirs is an eclectic and pragmatic thinking, but very much anti-capitalistic and anti-imperialist as much as any average Latin American person of their generation.

They trusted nobody. Both had a charismatic personality, were religious in a non-devout manner, but spiritualist in their own particular way, superstitious, with strong conservative and traditionalist roots. Both had authoritarian, dominant and intolerant tempers, were very used to imposing their will with little dialogue or negotiation. They both needed confrontation and conflict as a way to strengthen themselves.  Dialogue and agreement were seen as weakening them.

More importantly in political terms, democracy was just a power instrument for them, not an end in itself. They were hardly democrats, and for that reason they would disrespect constitutions, laws or elections and referendums when necessary, all to please their ambitions of power. However, occasionally, their pragmatism might disguise their will for absolute power by giving concessions to the political opposition, economic or strategic decisions; in this last aspect perhaps Evo distinguished himself more than Chávez, as we will discuss now. Anyway it seems that socialist paradigms have been less present in everyday Bolivian life than in Venezuela, where it was an almost ubiquitous cliché under Chávez and presently with Maduro.

It seems obvious from the personality comparisons between Evo and Chávez that there are more similarities than differences. By the way, except for the first paragraph of this profile, the humble origin, the more I think about it I believe it could describe many other world leaders' populist personalities. For instance, could we imagine Trump fitting the description?

Now regarding the economic achievements of both presidents, there also are more similarities than differences in several macroeconomic and developmental aspects.

First it is important to consider the timeline and the framework of both processes. As I have mentioned in previous WAIS posts, when Chávez took power in 1998, Venezuela was a prosperous society, with high social mobility rate, a relatively low level of poverty, a high power of consumption and high GDP per capita, with a temporary crisis. It was a relatively industrialized country, and with mature oil and energy sectors, staffed by a highly trained and skilled personnel, fully nationalized since 1976. The Bolivian oil and gas sector, when Evo took power in 2006, was in the hands of foreign oil companies. The country was in a deep economic crisis, with an enormous poverty level, the largest underdeveloped and uneducated indigenous population (68%) in America, and a long history of social-political instability and turmoil. In summary, the frameworks for the two countries were very different.

As a direct consequence, Bolivia's achievements under the early years of Evo´s presidency were more spectacular and more distinguishable. It is easier and faster to move from a very low level of development to a higher one, than to move from an average level to an excellent one. Furthermore, Bolivia had the strong support of Venezuela's financial resources, oil technology and the assistance of experienced Venezuelan personnel, as well as strategic support from Cuba.

From 2006 until 2014, both countries greatly benefited from high oil prices, which gave them the resources to increase GDPs in a steady way. Bolivia increased its oil revenue and its GDP from US$1000 to almost US$4000 in only a few years. The increase has been steady for Bolivia until now, although the trend is slightly decreasing. In those first years and due to the enormous resources received, the country could implement huge infrastructure, energy and construction investments, and particularly abundant social expenditures, which reduced the level of poverty from 68% to 43% at present.

If only the first 12 years of Chávez are considered, from 1998 to 2010, the social and economic achievements were perhaps as spectacular as those of Evo in Bolivia. The main difference is that Chávez did not nationalize the oil industry and he did everything possible to destroy it by replacing technicians and experienced managers by corrupt loyalists. Moreover, he used oil as a platform to internationalize his revolution or other populist purposes beyond the objectives of the industry, as well as to destroy the private business sector in a more radical socialist fashion.

It seems that Evo did listen and rely on more experienced economists, managers and technicians to design and implement economic, monetary, and fiscal policies, and more importantly, to sustain the main source of Bolivian wealth, the gas and oil industry. Although both were suspicious, this apparent delegation of decisions to competent subordinates is a great distinction from Chávez, who was used to commanding in a military fashion. It was much harder for him to delegate authority.

Perhaps as a consequence of these policies, Bolivia's macroeconomic indicators--inflation, currency reserves, devaluation, employment, etc.--have been solid and sustained.

In summary, Evo´s "successful-miraculous" achievements have so far been based on:

1) Oil industry nationalization and market prices.

2) Huge public investments and social policies.

3) A strong fiscal discipline with a low public debt.

4) GDP growth based on increments of internal consumption.

5) Public savings in international reserves.

6) Monetary policies, control of inflation and devaluation.

7) Political and social stability through the integration of unions with political institutions and decision-making.

In spite of Evo´s pragmatism, the Bolivian development social-model may eventually be consolidated. Can these conditions maintained after the first 12 or 14 years?

Bolivia has started its development from a very low level and it was easy and fast to its present levels. It remains to be seen if it can be maintained. Bolivia might face pretty much the same risks as Venezuela after the first 12 years of Chávez´s regime; low gas and oil prices, mono productive dependence, strong dependence on the energy sector of an undiversified industry, corruption, a lack of funds to support social policies, the possible destruction of the private business sector, inflation and devaluation, the lack of legal certainty, low prices for Bolivia's export products and some other risks, all products of Evo's undemocratic attitudes and actions, particularly disrespecting the Constitution to stay in power and consolidate a dictatorship.

JE comments:  Another brilliant analysis, Nacho!  One feather in Evo's cap is #3 above:  strong fiscal discipline.  How has he managed to do this?  Populists of both right and left (but especially of the left) tend to give away the store--until there is nothing left to give.


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 134

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44640 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who