Socialism and Democracy at the Crossroads in Venzeula

Socialism: (Noun) An economic system based on state ownership of capital and industry

Democracy: (Noun) The political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives

Socialism and democracy don't make good bedfellows. While in theory there appears to be no inconsistency between the two, after all both are meant to protect interests of the masses, on closer observation one would notice that both are simply incompatible due to their fundamentally different prerequisites and operating styles.

Socialism, especially the Simon Bolivar kind that is in vogue in Venezeula, Cuba and Bolivia, demands quick State reforms for the betterment of the masses. To achieve this end, nationalization of large industries, redistribution of land, waving of loans, restructuring of local administrative bodies, and State sponsored universal health care and education are the primary ingredients of the bolivarian cure. These changes are not easy and need swift government action keeping in mind the best interests of the people, and here is where the inconsistencies with democracy begin.

As Lincoln put it, "Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people". But then the question arises, “Who are these people?” Are they truly the poor marginalized class that forms the majority populace? Most often, they are not. Invariably the political class in question is an elite entity by itself – a concoction of wealth, power and caprice. Hence, the very composition of the political rulers ensures that democratic governments in developing nations fail the first test of socialism, which is to carry the best interests of the masses while making and implementing policy decisions.

The second and more serious failing of democracy is built in its roots itself – ineluctable delay in securing the majority vote. Since democracy serves as a framework within which diverse fragments of the society bring forth their voices, the legislative process invariably degenerates into ceaseless debates, arguments and politicking that impede speedy decision making. Hence, the slow pace of democracy frustrates idealistic and dynamic leaders who envisage revolutionary changes within short time frames. In such circumstances, it is no surprise that many aggressive leaders like Castro and Chavez in their haste to establish idealistic socialist states often transgress democratic principles and tread down the path of totalitarianism. A recent article in "The Hindu" (p18, Jan 31, 2007) about the Venezualan parliament passing a bill to grant President Chavez special powers to rule by decree is a disturbing illustration of the same.

In Chavez's case there is no doubting the fact that most of his reforms so far have been socially productive and have provided succor to the masses of Venezuela. But what is worrying is his seeming hurry to go down the totalitarian path. His demands such as the one to alter the Constitution to let him seek re-election for infinite terms are worrisome. The fact that he nonchalantly operates a dummy parliament which is bereft of opposition members, because they boycotted the previous elections lends serious credibility to his detractors who call him a “dictator”.

The real question to be asked here is whether the price of diluting democracy is worth the benefits reaped through extreme socialism. History is strewn with innumerable examples that demonstrate how the initial fruits of socialism often turn sour when its leaders transmute from being benign trustees of democracy to power hungry despots who would go to any lengths to extend their regimes. Stalin, Gadaffi, Castro and good old Saddam Hussain are but a few famous occupants of this pantheon of shame. After all it is not for nothing that the old adage, “Total power corrupts totally”, has survived till this day.

It is in this context that I hope and pray that Mr. Chavez doesn’t head down the totalitarian dictatorship route and lead his country to distress. So far, he has been a great leader of his people; however, he is a leader in a hurry and at this juncture it would be interesting to see if he can reconcile his socialist ideology with the principles of democracy. My bet is that he won’t be able to. I hope I am wrong.