Hugo Chavez is still dead

[Velasco]

I watched an interesting interview in television: two academicians expert in international relations, that have played the role of observers in several Venezuelan elections, gave their opinion about the present events.

They were coinciding in the following points:

1) During the years of Chavez in the presidency the level of poverty has diminished dramatically. Chavez gave voice to people who previously had been totally isolated from the political life (the humble classes).

2) Neither in the fight against corruption nor in the endemic violence that suffers the country have been progresses, nor probably a great political will to approach these problems.

3)) The political polarization has come to unbearable ends, even managing to divide families. For the good of the country, the moderate actors in both fields, Chavismo and opposition, should have more a more protagonic role. It's been said from different places that Venezuela needs a reconciliation to go forward. Such thing is not going to happen tomorrow.

[Velasco]

But did he really care about the poor of his country? His policies may have helped them, but Chavez was a politician in the end. The man desired power, and he tried it the traditional South American way: a military coup. His regime was about keeping his buddies rich, and staying in power. He did nothing to combat the rising crime or inflation that ravages Venezuela today.

Yes, he cared about them. And even if he didn't care at all, he did more to help them than all the previous presidents in Venezuela. You don't need to be an expert in the History of that country, just a little generic knowledge to realize. Yes, the man tried a military coup in a very turbulent moment of the History of the country, when thousands of poor people invaded Caracas coming from the slums that surround the capital of Venezuela (the Cerros). However, nobody but right-wing hacks think that the man had the intention of becoming in a new Pinochet --sorry, it's not a good comparison, right-wing hacks tend to justify that Chilean dictator-- . Yes, there is corruption and criminality, just like in Honduras, Guatemala and other Latin American countries ruled by leaders more esteemed by the US right-wing. Yes, his friends in the international arena suck, the man had some eccentric taste for anti-gringo world leaders. However, there's no room for comparison between Chavez and Gaddafi or Ahmadineyad. No, I'm not a Chavez hack, but some double-standard value judgements make me laugh --or shout, it depends on the context .

[Velasco]

Ok, this whole country can burn in hell with Hugo for all I care

Banning alcohol during election days or events like the death of a president is usual in Latin American countries. I don't think there's a point here.

[Velasco]

I've read a really interesting analysis on Chavez's legacy. Regardless the article is not kind with Chavez, the author avoids the typical biased ranting and gives some clues and insight, if you are really interested in what's going on.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/03/07/inenglish/1362688264_798804.html

Also, it could be fascinating the debate about the survival of Chavismo after Chavez or the similarities and differences with other so-called populist movements in Latin America, such as Peronismo (Argentina) or Velasquismo (Perú). Chavez was an admirer of Velasco Alvarado, which ruled Perú some decades ago, and met him back in the 70's.

I don't care too much about corpses and burial rituals, on the other hand.