Reply #22: I mostly agree, but caudillos come in all sorts of forms, shapes and ideologies... [View All]

[arcos]

They have always been enamored with power though. In my country we had two big caudillos in the 20th century, and despite their shortcomings and sometimes lack of respect for democracy, their legacy is mostly positive... they were the architects that allowed Costa Rica to have a solid middle class and to a extent avoid the extreme unequality problems most other countries in the region have experienced. Thanks to them the army was abolished, we have universal healthcare and workers' rights, etc. But both of them ruled their parties (and the country when they had their chance) with an iron fist, and their legacy was so strong that even after their death people were either "Figuerista" or "Calderonista" (even now a few people define themselves that way, 60 years later!). They always insisted on running for President even if their parties had plenty of people not only capable and willing but that could enrich and further expand the reformist steps they took. New blood is ALWAYS important in politics, because politicians of all stripes eventually lose touch with their constituents.

In fact, we now in Costa Rica have a President that wants to play the caudillo too. He wasn't allowed to run for reelection, yet he lobbied the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court which struck down term limits as unconstitucional... basically he wanted to be crowned as President once again, and sadly the people voted him in again, although by the tightest of margins much to his surprise. He ran as "the Nobel Peace Prize winner"... "the only one who can take Costa Rica out of poverty"... "the captain that the ship needs". Not a dictator, but an authoritarian figure.

I think myths are always harmful... whether it be the cowboy, the rockstar, the caudillo, or whatever, especially if people adopt them because they have a need for them, like what happened in the case of Arias. Myths blind people, and especially when we are talking about leaders, we all need to be aware and criticize even our own if needed (not eat our own, though) when they deserve it. And it certainly cuts both ways, because there is also the slander that becomes a negative myth among a part of the population, like "Chávez the dictator", "Kerry the coward", "Gore the stiff", etc.

I totally agree that Chávez has had his way against all odds, against big money, against the media and against the US, and that's thanks to his progressive policies and the support he has among the Venezuelan people. And I not only support that, but think it is an amazing example for all nations and progressive leaders and movements everywhere. However, I have always considered him a caudillo... Chávez is far from a dictator, but he is indeed authoritarian, and the Venezuelan people not only recognize that but actually LIKE it. I respect it, but that's a big turn off for me, and personally I think Latin America DOES NOT need more authoritarian leaders. Yes, that's up to the Venezuelans (and up to each country's people) to determine, and I know I'm biased because I'm Costa Rican and we mostly dislike authoritarian attitudes, but I certainly think the healthy thing would be for him to retire after this term and become an elder statesman that will continue to work for the cause he championed, it's not like he's going away.

I definitely agree that the Bush administration and the media love to play on stereotypes and call him dictator and stuff, when we all know that they are both guilty of much, much worse and dictator-like things than Chávez. We still have to see exactly what he proposes, I'm not willing to believe 100% what the media is reporting... but for now, I certainly don't like this at all.