The Venezuelan Coup: 20 Years Later
APRIL 15, 2022
BY DAN BEETON
On April 11, 2002, Venezuela’s democratically elected government, headed by Hugo Chávez Frías, was ousted in a military coup d’etat. Then, dramatically, two days later, the coup was overturned by a mass mobilization of Venezuelans. They demanded the restoration of democracy and the return of a government that appeared to be making good on its commitment to redistribute Venezuela’s oil wealth to benefit the country’s most marginalized sectors. These events led to lasting ramifications not just for Venezuela, but for Latin America and the Caribbean as a whole, paving the way for a “pink tide” of progressive movements that took power democratically throughout the region. In many cases, similar power struggles ensued, pitting left-leaning governments supporting economic and social gains for the poor, the working class, and marginalized communities, against powerful factions of society seeking, generally, to maintain a status quo that has served to benefit mostly a small number of elites and foreign interests while exploiting and repressing the majority population.
The coup itself was not novel, of course, but it was the first Latin American coup in the twenty-first century, and showed that the US government would continue to prioritize its perceived geopolitical interests — and those of multinational corporations — in the region over democracy. The US would go on to support coups, and other sorts of undemocratic political transitions, in Haiti (2004), Honduras (2009), Paraguay (2012), Brazil (2016), and Bolivia (2019) — and would show support for attempted coups in Bolivia (2008), Ecuador (2010), and Venezuela (2019). Elements of the 2002 Venezuela coup playbook would also be repeated in many cases.
Much has since been written about the trajectory the Chávez government took following its survival of the coup, for better and for worse. The experiences of late 2002 and early 2003 (in which many of the same opposition forces continued their attempt to topple the government through a crippling months-long managerial strike that paralyzed the oil industry), and 2004, when Chávez handily survived a recall referendum, demonstrated both that Chávez had nothing to lose by turning farther left (he would proclaim his government’s goal of working toward “socialism for the twenty-first century” in 2005), and that he would need to take firm action if he were to gain control of the Venezuelan economy and be able to carry out his agenda. Chávez sacked PDVSA’s striking managers, which subsequently allowed Venezuela to achieve some of the strongest economic growth in the region for several years after. This was accompanied by impressive poverty reduction and the launching of the many misiones — programs designed to provide low-income Venezuelans with food, health care, education, and other needs.
The “self-proclaimed socialist” President Chávez (as international media loved to call him) that we remember now is really the post-coup Chávez. More than 20 years after he was first elected, it is easy to forget that he originally campaigned on a “third way” platform, calling to mind Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. So what did Chávez do in his first years that so upset his opponents, foreign and domestic, that they overthrew him?
More:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/04/15/239879/
= new reply since forum marked as read
That was the vast target of the crushing imposition of the economic changes made by US-supported Carlos Andrés Pérez, which wildly increased the cost of transportation, heating, cooking, groceries, etc. far beyond anything the vast impoverished sector could begin to afford which naturally triggered poor people pouring into the streets to protest, and where they were slaughtered by Pérez' military.
That wasn't a situation which bothered those in "upscale" neighborhoods in the slightest.
It did seem to make a mark on the enormous majority of Venezuela's illiterate, poorly fed, poorly sheltered, poorly employed, hopeless, suffering masses.
I looked at the sources tapped for information at the bottom, to see which ones the "author" of this report chose. They are all right-wing opposition sources, all having attacked and smeared Hugo Chavez from the first. Readers who follow news in Latin America know who they are and what their record is.
These opposition media sources even mocked Hugo Chavez, slandering him as an "ape" and all of them personally, nastily ridiculing him throughout his time in politics. It was a long, ugly thing to watch. They certainly distinguished themselves by continuing their campaign with his daughter.
They also shifted their focus, once it was clear Chavez was dying, to start slandering Maduro, while Chavez was still living, and started claiming at some point Maduro, then, was ALSO a billionaire, like the "billionaire" they claimed Chavez was!
They were still attacking Chavez while he was dying in his deathbed, a new low, no doubt, in right-wing journalism. They even dragged out their "billionaire" accusation out in the last week or two to dump into his grave with him by suddenly claiming Chavez was wildly wealthy, trying to make sure they got that last acusation in there just before it was time to bury him. It was as if they wanted to get that last claim in while he was still technically alive. Grotesque.
While reading the bio., I wondered why no one came forward to refute the "misstatements" to Wiki, but decided everyone concluded anyone would realize what it was already.
They started off their slander campaign on Maduro also while Chavez was dying, concentrating on mocking him for having driven a bus as a young man. They got a lot of fun out of that, continued dragging it out over and over until they maybe got tired of using it, perhaps thinking it was getting worn out already. Maybe that's when they decided to make the leap to their claim Maduro is also another billionaire.
