No doubt Chavez originally won free elections, and no doubt he's made them increasingly unfree ever since, in typical fascist mode (intimidating voters and opponents and any independent voices). But after 11 years of rule bought primarily with social spending largesse fueled by high oil prices, Venezuela is a shambles of its former self. If truly free elections were held today, with Chavez's popularity so low (down from the heights to a mere 40%), he could easily lose.
Thing is, democracy will not be allowed to do its thing and throw this bum out--finally.
The Economist describes the Chavez/Iran/Russia/Zimbabwe/Sudan model as:
- touted democratic mandate (elections are held)
- populist socialism
- anti-Americanism
- resource nationalism
- calibrated repression of opponents.
I consider this a thoroughly unimpressive model that cannot thrive absent high oil/commodity prices, so not much to fear since it cannot really be exported effectively.
Doesn't mean Chavez can't make his mischief, as in Colombia with his support of the narco-insurgency FARC (with whom he cooperates on drug running into the US), but as the first piece points out, Chavez's influence peaked in the region a couple of years ago.
And since the oil price drop of 08-09, the economy in Venezuela has gone dramatically downhill, to the point where Chavez recently nationalized grocery stores, which is truly pathetic. From GDP growth of roughly 10% in 05-06, Venezuela has dropped to negative growth last year and is predicted to hold that pattern this year and maybe breaking even next). The diagnosis? Stagflation (low growth and high inflation).
Upcoming: legislative election in Sept and presidential one in 2012. Since Chavez can't allow true democracy, the only question left, says the mag, is whether his rule ends peacefully or not.
I don't see him going any time soon. He's got his military and his $200B cash-up-front deal with China.
He'll just get nastier as time goes on.