Log in

View Full Version : The Chavez dynasty and it's alleged corruption



spartan
6th December 2008, 23:38
The dynasty was saved and its members had come to give thanks - one shiny sports utility vehicle after another turned into Plaza Bolivar to deposit a Chávez in front of the church.

A brass band struck up Venezuela (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/venezuela)'s national anthem and throngs of supporters in red T-shirts reached out to touch the triumphant clan as it made its way to the front of the altar.

President Hugo Chávez was in the capital, Caracas, but his parents and five brothers were in Barinas this week to celebrate their continued rule over a rural fiefdom dubbed the cradle of the Bolivarian revolution.

The president's father, Hugo de los Reyes, was handing over the state governor's reins to his eldest son, Adan. "Thanks be to God," beamed the relieved patriarch.

Not everyone was feeling grateful. A rebellion almost toppled the clan in regional elections last month and there have been cries - though so far no proof - of ballot box fraud.

It is the latest allegation against the so-called "royal family of Barinas". The family has long been accused of nepotism, corruption and tainting the principles of Latin America's leading leftist experiment.

"It is a corrupt dynasty. They talk about socialist revolution but they are practising vulgar capitalism," said Wilmer Azuaje, a politician who broke with the president's PSUV party and ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Barinas. "This country needs a socialist revolution but what we have is robbery, a robo-lution."

Despite such attacks the family survived a challenge from breakaway "chavistas" to eke out a narrow election victory that should secure its pre-eminence. But the perception of sleaze risks turning Barinas into a symbol of misrule.

That is something the president, 54, can ill afford as he pushes for a controversial referendum to abolish term limits. Pollsters say discontent over inflation, corruption and poor public services could sabotage his dream of indefinite re-election. He narrowly lost a similar referendum last year.

"Everybody thinks Chávez is honest but they can't say that about his government. And I don't think his family has behaved well," said Larry Birns, head of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a Washington-based think-tank. "Corruption could have a chilling impact on Chávez's prospects if there isn't an all-out war against it."

The president has promised a "revolution within the revolution" to purge the rot, which he admits is a problem, but has defended his family.

Barinas is an unlikely revolutionary cradle: plains of cattle, corn and palm trees stretching towards the Andes with the occasional dusty, hardscrabble town. Yet it was from here that young Hugo emerged, via the army, to head a radical political movement named after the 19th century liberation hero Simon Bolívar.

The fervour that swept the former tank commander to the presidency in 1998 also swept his father, a retired schoolteacher, to the governor's mansion in their home state. While Hugo drove South America's energy giant toward socialism and showdowns with the US, his parents and brothers busied themselves in Barinas.

Argenis, 50, was made secretary of state, a specially created post to rove across local government. Narciso, 53, headed a health and sports programme. Anibal, 51, became mayor of the town of Sabaneta, the president's birthplace. Adelis, 43, became vice-president of a bank with close government links.

The president's mother Elena Frias, 73, headed a children's charity and overhauled a dowdy image with facelifts, designer clothes and a poodle named Coqui. Her cosmetic surgeon caused a rumpus when he complained about being blacklisted from a golf club because of his association with the family.

The Chávez name was emblazoned across the state on billboards and banners. In contrast to predecessors who used a single car the new governor travelled in a convoy of SUVs. Rumours about the family were traded as if it was a soap opera.

Record oil revenues washed through state coffers but contracts for public works skirted open tender through the use of emergency decrees, with 18 "emergencias" cited between 2004 and 2006, according to an Associated Press count.

The result, said critics, was cronyism, shoddy work and waste, including a $93m (£63.6m) football stadium, which, like many infrastructure projects, remains unfinished. Some $700m has been promised for an international airport even though the current one has just six flights daily.

Locals grumble that roads close to Chávez properties were paved while highways crumbled and that the family contradicted official land redistribution policy by acquiring big estates.

Azuaje, the dissident "chavista" politician, presented parliament with documents alleging the family used employees as frontmen to buy 17 farms. He suggested the money was siphoned from the state purse.

A parliamentary investigation stalled and local prosecutors showed little interest in pursuing the claims. Family supporters said the allegations were baseless. "Where is the proof? Without proof there is no crime," said Jesus Ruiz, chief of the state's civil defence.

The family kept power in Barinas not through skullduggery but by providing free education, health and food, said Gabriel Perez, 49, a farmer. "That is why I vote for them."

The Chávez family declined interview requests but the new governor, Adan, 55, paused outside the thanksgiving mass to express disdain for talk of a corrupt dynasty. "I am not going to respond to that. That is what the squalid ones say."

In his office next to the church, the bishop of Barinas, Ramon Linares Sandoval, a high-profile critic, fumed. Courts would not investigate corruption while a Chávez was governor, he said. "Venezuela's institutions have been kidnapped. Adan's victory will protect the family."

Red-clad crowds were gathering outside his window but the bishop was not going to attend the victory mass. "I haven't been invited."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/06/chavez-family-venezuela

Dimentio
7th December 2008, 13:22
The Caesars of Rome also gave people social welfare.

I somewhat sympathise with them, even though they were quite corrupt and tyrannical. The people of the Roman Empire fared better under the emperors than under the republic.

I prefer a corrupt, slightly authoritarian family dynasty which gives free education and healthcare to people before an aristocratic republic which expects everyone to survive on their own basis while handing out welfare to those who are most wealthy.

spartan
8th December 2008, 04:46
The Caesars of Rome also gave people social welfare.

I somewhat sympathise with them, even though they were quite corrupt and tyrannical. The people of the Roman Empire fared better under the emperors than under the republic.

I prefer a corrupt, slightly authoritarian family dynasty which gives free education and healthcare to people before an aristocratic republic which expects everyone to survive on their own basis while handing out welfare to those who are most wealthy.

I agree with you but I think it important to call these leaders up on any excess.

The thing is though even if some of what is said in the article is true Chavez is alot less corrupt then the former pro-US regime!

He reminds me of Vlad the Impaler in that he is a populist leader who has supplanted the former ruling elite (in Vlad's case the Boyars) and stands up for the common man who seem to love him (as they did with Vlad because he championed them as a way of breaking the power of the Boyars).

Chavez also shares Vlad's desire to keep his country from being a puppet of the dominant empire of the day (In Chavez's case America, in Vlad's case the Ottoman Empire) whilst having to tackle the former ruling elite who seek the dominant empire's power over their country as long as they are the ones appointed to govern it for them (the Boyars in Wallachia used to favour the Ottoman's at times especially during Vlad's time in power).

Dimentio
8th December 2008, 05:24
The difference is of course thatr while Vlad was totally incorruptible, he had some form of obsession with what he saw as corruption, namely female sexual desires. He killed a lot of his own people, for no other crimes than selling sex, theft, being lazy(!). Vlad the Impaler got his nickname because he impaled lots of people, maybe not tens of thousands, but at least hundreds. He also persecuted the Jews and Germans living in Wallachia.

Vlad the Impaler was more like a European middle age-version of Pol Pot.

Chàvez don't strike me as a person who would punish women for having sex outside of wedlock. It seems to me that his motivation is that he wants to be loved by the people, while Vlad the Impaler's motivation strikes me as wanting the people to "be perfect" and free from sin.

I prefer a leader who understands human beings and loves them, while maybe having some "faults" himself/herself, before a leader who is flawless and demands everyone else to be flawless and adhere to his/her ideal.

Moreover, it is simply preposterous to compare a leader during the late feudal era with a leader during the later era of capitalism. Ottoman imperialism was not about economic exploitation in the capitalist sense.

Vendetta
10th December 2008, 17:57
Chavez dynasty?

:confused:

What dynasty?

Dimentio
10th December 2008, 20:08
His father and brothers.

Herman
10th December 2008, 20:52
They use "dynasty" as an insult and comparison towards Adan Chavez and the father of Hugo Chavez (also called Hugo Chavez).

Cheung Mo
10th December 2008, 21:45
I'm personally not fond of dynasty politics, but I hardly consider it grounds for ultra-leftists and agent provacateurs to gang up on Chavez. Furthermore, Preston Manning and George W. Bush would be equally pitiful without their fathers. :-)