The trouble with political enthusiasts is that we do like to find heroes and then invest too many of our hopes in them. A bit of cynicism is usually a far wider strategy.
So, when I first began to be told that socialism was being built in Venezuela, I refused to buy into the dream. I had a lot of doubts over whether a state top down command economy could work even if the most well intentioned and far sighted leader was in charge. I had even more doubts about whether it was wise to build an economy around oil revenues and use so much of those revenues on short term measures designed to relieve poverty rather than long term investment designed to remove the causes.
Those doubts proved to be heavily understated. The country has descended into a complete mess and become a poster child for anyone on the far right who wishes to illustrate that left-wing economics always result in failure.
Blaming all this on a US conspiracy is not an adequate intellectual response. There is, of course, no shortage of evidence for US interference and attempts to undermine the Venezuelan government. On their own those efforts could never have succeeded. Clumsy top down policies that couldn’t be sustained, corrupt officials who were over secure in their political power, and a dependence on fossil fuel economics did quite enough damage even without the contribution of US interference.
None of those internal failures justify outside interference and the completely arbitrary recognition of an opposition politician as the head of the country. Imagine how Theresa May would feel if President Putin and Premier Xi announced that because of the absence of coherent and efficient government in Britain they were now recognising Jeremy Corbyn as the Prime Minister of the UK. Outside interference in other country’s politics is rarely wise. Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan.
Nor is there the least justification for all the claims that the US and UK governments are only interfering in Venezuela because of how much they care about democracy, human rights and the fate of the poor and the neglected. You only have to ask questions about their policies with regard to Saudi Arabia or Palestine to see through that guff and bluster.
But principled opposition to outside interference shouldn’t stop anyone from asking hard and difficult questions about what went wrong in Venezuela and refusing to accept naïve explanations about the failure. Things don’t go that badly wrong without internal failures. Failure to recognise the dangers of over use of state direction of the economy. Failure to recognise the corrupting influence of oil money on society. Failure to realise that no economy can be securely based on extracting fossil fuels. Failure to empower people to get rid of corrupt officials at the ballot box because of an over reliance on one party.
When one political party starts to dominate a country it is rarely long before the officials that represent that party start to protect their own interests rather than those of the people. Anyone who naively believes that things would all have been fine if only Victor Chavez could have lived for ever and carried on his wise leadership utterly fails to understand the core problem. There is a structural danger in top down states regardless of whether they call themselves socialist that has emerged again and again. Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China weren’t personality failures they were caused by a fundamental flaw in the belief that wise Marxist leaders understand more than the proletariat.
All of which leads me to some serious questions about what is happening in other parts of the world and in particular about China.
There is much to admire about many of the achievements and the policies that the Chinese Communist Party has implemented over the past 30 years since Deng introduced a fundamental change of approach. There is also plenty to criticise and to fear.
On the positive side there is the astonishing transformation of billions of lives that has come from lifting them out of dire poverty and providing them with much more opportunity and choice. This is a dramatic illustration of what can be achieved when market forces are guided by conscious state planning. Unfortunately, much of it was the result of a single-minded determination to achieve economic growth at all costs.
There is now extensive evidence that the leadership of China understands what those costs were and is committed to trying to rebalance the economy and fix the appalling pollution that is killing the children even of the highest-ranking cadres. Even the rich and powerful have to breathe in traffic fumes. So China now has some fabulous policies about electric vehicles, solar energy and tree planting along with a real determination to invest in being at the forefront in low carbon technology such as better battery storage.
That positive stuff is accompanied by some truly dreadful policies. There is now clear satellite evidence that camps have been built with the capacity to house around a million Uighurs in re-education camps for daring to believe in a religion that the government disapproves of. Things aren’t much better in Tibet. Back in the old Han heartlands, Xi Jinping runs a government that makes it very clear to its citizens what the limits are and the price for going beyond those limits are heavy. Internationally famous people like Ai Weiwei can be detained for weeks for making a few comments the leadership doesn’t like. A top actress recently disappeared for weeks and only came back after she proclaimed her love for the party and that she had benefitted from much needed re-education. Officials who fall out of line suddenly discover that they are in jail for corruption. Those who stay in line don’t suffer the same fate however bad their graft turns out to be. Ordinary peasants have their land stolen by powerful local officials and are shot down when they protest. Taiwan is threatened with military action. Internet sites commenting on Winnie the Poo are closed down because he looks a bit like Xi.
Much as I admire some of the excellent environmental policies in China I therefore also detest the authoritarian undemocratic system of government that is implementing them. China badly needs a second dose of directional change that is every bit as radical as what came about via Deng Xiaoping. The only way to stamp out corruption of powerful local officials is to expose them to the power of the ballot box and introduce the refreshing influence of genuine local democracy. Given the overall popularity of Xi with the majority Han population he could easily risk a lot more opening up of the media, of the courts and of the ballot box. He is doing exactly the opposite. He is trying to double up state controls and prop up his regime with nationalist rhetoric.
The risks of that to the world are enormous. We currently have an unreliable maverick far right nationalist in charge of the United States. We have another extreme nationalist in charge of Russia. The last thing we need is an extreme nationalist authoritarian regime in charge of China but that is exactly what we have got.
In those circumstances I can understand why anyone would grasp at straws and look to find a government somewhere in the world that they can hold up as an example of an enlightened socialist state doing things differently. Let’s just be very carefully about where we place our faith. After all, in the immortal words of the Who: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Before you get down on your knees and pray that “We won’t be fooled again!”