The People's Man: Hugo Chavez Dies

I have always been fascinated, sometimes, piqued, by the man most Latin Americans would consider a "people's man." Indeed, such sobriquet would fit a man who essentially, as CNN would put it, united a nation but divided minds. He was a radical who was actually in power. Changed the Venezuelan Constitution to allow himself to run again, and again. He was also, the "people's dictator." Empowered by the masses to snuff out their own freedoms in exchange for a leader who would champion their needs. And the people of Venezuela got it: Chavez subsidized food, gas and other basic necessities. In addition, he nationalized foreign controlled corporations and limited their power to profit from the Venezuelan consumer. He also send money to various leftist Latin American countries, notably Cuba and Bolivia.

Hugo Chavez was brazen as he was courageous. He called George W. Bush the "devil" in no less than the United Nations. A radical, leftist president without a doubt he was, and his legacy, I believe, will be mixed with the complex panorama that is Latin America. His successor would have to fill his shoes, whether he likes it or not, he will rule under the shadow of a popular president, a popular Latin American head of state, at least for those who espouse a radical, militant political ideology.

So like most dictators, death was his ultimate enemy. Like most dictators, he lived large, he lived high, he lived to enliven, in a good and in a bad way, depending of course on your persuasion, political that is, he was and always will be remembered in that corner of the world as the saviour of the masses. Saved probably from the cycle of poverty, hopelessness and bitterness that is a constant in the developing world.

What will be Chavez's lasting legacy? Honestly, I do not know. For the ideology he espoused was militancy for militancy's sake, radical without being thoughtful, ideological rather than practical. The world is too dynamic for reactionary leaders to plant the seeds of lasting stability. He may have solved for the mean time the pressing concerns of the ordinary man, but did he sow the foundations of a mature, dynamic social order responsive to the percolating enigma of modern life? You decide.