He was called a "socialist showman" and "elected autocrat", derided as a blind hater of the United States, and ridiculed as a demagogue who splurged his country's great oil wealth on ill-conceived populist schemes, distributed largesse to undeserving regimes in the neighbourhood, ran the nation's economy into the ground, and sharply polarised its society.
Hugo Chavez died on March 5. Heads of state came to his funeral and sent condolences to his family – except for the U.S. president. Even in death the White House maintained a resentful tone toward a man we had named as an enemy. But what did Chavez do to us?
The Russian blogosphere is sharply divided over the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, with some people expressing vulgar joy at his passing, and others pouring out passionate eulogies.
By definition, a revolution is a collective process, not a one-man endeavour. While the social and political legacy of Hugo Chávez is remarkable, the Bolivarian Revolution has been intrinsically tied to him as the leader. With Chávez's death, the Boliviarian Revolution faces a fundamental test.
An international seminar in Montevideo, co-organised by TNI and the Uruguayan government, shared the latest learning and innovation by state-owned enterprises across Latin America and affirmed their importance as instruments for economic and social development.
The Venezuelan process is caught between a fundamental contradiction: popular demands for democratic participation against tendencies towards hierarchical decison-making and concentration of power.
Venezuela's revolution has often been tied to the slogan “Socialism in the 21st Century.” What might that might mean concretely in changes under way in the renationalised state telecommunications company, CANTV?