Hugo Chavez’s message to Goodluck Jonathan

Viewpoint illustration
| credits: Bennett Omeke

Semiotics teaches us that not all messages are conveyed through verbal or symbolic signs. There are messages, like photographs, which are conveyed

through iconic signs. Unlike a verbal sign, which has an arbitrary relationship with its referent, an iconic sign directly corresponds to its referent: a photograph is an image of the object it depicts. There are yet other messages that are conveyed through deeds, rather than verbal or iconic signs. Such messages reside in actions rather than in words or images. In the South-West, for example, we continue to speak fondly of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, not so much for what he said as for what he did, especially in improving education, agriculture, and infrastructure in the old Western Region. Such deeds, often labelled as “legacies”, convey eternal messages.

Such messages were embedded in the legacies left behind by the late President of Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias (simply known as Hugo Chavez), who died on March 5, 2013, after a protracted battle with cancer. The messages contain important lessons for President Goodluck Jonathan and other African leaders. Without a doubt, Chavez’s legacies were a mixed bag. To the average Venezuelan and his global network of admirers, he left “good” legacies. To political opponents and international detractors, his legacies were “bad”. Such is the interpretation of the legacies of controversial leaders like Chavez. My focus here is on the messages embedded in his good legacies.

The first message is about transparency. Unlike Jonathan, who has never been straightforward with Nigerians about his wife’s ailment, or his predecessor and boss, the late President Musa Yar’Adua, who concealed information about his illness till death, Chavez quickly went on TV to tell Venezuelans and the world that he had been diagnosed with a cancerous tumour. We subsequently followed his ordeal as a cancer patient, who underwent chemotherapy, radiation, and multiple surgeries. We also knew that the surgeries led to respiratory infections. He left no one in doubt about Cuba, where many Venezuelans are undergoing medical training, as the location of his treatment. The transition of power was never in jeopardy as Chavez always transferred power to his Deputy, Nicolas Maduro, whenever it was necessary to do so. As his illness intensified, he made it clear that, should the need arise, Maduro would succeed him as stipulated by the constitution.

Chavez was also transparent about his political and economic programmes, even when some of them earned him negative branding. He said what he wanted to do and went ahead to do it. He also was always clear about his disdain for Western capitalism, democracy, and governance culture, which many development agencies and donors often present as a precondition for development. As a counterpoint, Chavez first developed his brand of socialism, which he later refashioned into localised participatory democracy.

To be sure, he was blameworthy for abolishing term limits in order to stay in power indefinitely. The excuse that he needed more time for his reforms to take root is the staple of sit-tight presidents. He nevertheless deserves credit for domesticating democracy in a way that enhanced the participation of more Venezuelans, and for sharing the dividends of democracy across the population.

Chavez was also transparent about his intension and opinion. Rather than speak through aides or other third parties, he spoke directly to the people through his weekly live TV programme, Alo Presidente (Hello President), in which he expressed his opinion on just about anything and anyone. Rather than offer them protection, Chavez accused the political class of corruption; oil executives of profligacy; and church leaders of defending the rich, while neglecting the poor.

His second message is about the need to take bold and decisive steps in maximising profit from oil revenue and in using it to benefit society at large rather than the political class alone. Chavez’s anti-imperialist moves might have been excessive, but he succeeded in taking control of Venezuela’s vast oil wealth and other mineral resources, and canvassed for higher oil prices in OPEC. He also disregarded with impunity the free-market advocacy by the World Bank, the IMF, and even his country’s financial establishment and business elite. He fixed the prices of essential commodities, where necessary, and subsidised others for the poor. These moves were controversial and attracted a lot of criticism, especially from the West. Those criticisms were, however, assuaged by what Chavez did with excess oil wealth.

This leads to the third message — the redistribution of wealth to benefit the poor and the underprivileged. True, some economists disagree with Chavez’s policies, but many others and several international agencies agree that he successfully reduced the poverty level and death rates in his country.

His first move was to spearhead constitutional reforms that gave more rights to marginalised groups and communities. He also relaxed bureaucratic red tape in order to facilitate access to state resources, including land. More than 100,000 state-owned cooperatives were formed throughout the country with the assistance of government start-up credit and technical training, while thousands of communal councils were established to function as localised participatory democracies. Finally, he established the Ministry of Communes, which funded and oversaw all communal projects.

His second move was to take full control of oil production in his country, and then ploughed previously squandered oil revenue into various social programmes. Large state-funded projects that uplifted some of the poorest neighbourhoods were established. Housing projects were established for the poor and supplemented with subsidised food and free health care. He pumped money into education across the board, including an outreach-style literacy campaign to improve adult education. He also invested heavily in capacity building, including programmes designed to get long-term unemployed people back to work.

Chavez was exemplary in ensuring not only food security but also food sovereignty for Venezuela. During his tenure, milk, rice, and soyabean production increased by 50, 84, and 858! per cent, respectively. Rather than depend on foreign companies like Shoprite in Nigeria to distribute food products, Chavez established a national chain of supermarkets with nearly 17,000 outlets and over 85,000 workers to distribute food products at subsidised cost. Within a decade, food consumption in Venezuela increased by 95 per cent, while malnutrition-related deaths fell by 50 per cent. Finally, because oil production was fully controlled from drilling to refining, the fuel pump of petrol in Venezuela fell to about N9 per litre! As a result of government intervention programmes, poverty rate was reduced by over 50 per cent during Chavez’s tenure, while per capita spending on health nearly tripled from $273 when he took office to over $700.

Nationalising oil, gold, trade, and large parts of the food industry may not have been the best method of redistributing national wealth, eradicating poverty, and achieving food security. It is at least a sure way to reclaim national wealth and the exploitation of natural resources by expatriate companies, and to end the corrupt practices of African leaders who collude with them and sell out their people’s land. Even more importantly, Chavez showed that elegant speeches about transformation mean nothing when not backed up by good policies and successful implementation.

Against the above background, Jonathan’s condolence message to the people of Venezuela is not as important as the lessons he should have learnt from the good legacies Chavez left behind for his people. Nigerians have a right to such legacies and a duty to demand them of their leaders