By Ben Purper, Blogger for Latin American Affairs
In 1999, with the election of Hugo Chavez to the presidency, Venezuela embarked on a “Bolivarian Revolution,” named after famed Latin American revolutionary leader Simón Bolivar. Chavez used record-high oil revenues to create a pseudo-socialist state through nationalizing industries, expanding democratic participation, and creating massive social programs. As those with any knowledge of Latin American history might guess, this did not bode well for U.S.-Latin American relations. North American politicians and commentators alike were quick to demonize Chavez and his socialist experiment, going so far as to tacitly support an attempted military coup against him in 2002. Many commentators argue that the Western media’s near-universal condemnation of Chavez’s Venezuela functions less like journalism and more like political propaganda, as their eagerness to call Chavez a strongman dictator reflects the U.S.’s intolerance for anti-neoliberal economic policies rather than a legitimate political critique. Now, under the rule of President Nicolás Maduro two years after Chavez’s death, Venezuela is in the midst of a financial collapse and a breakdown of democratic institutions. From the New Yorker to the Washington Post, Western media outlets have started declaring that Venezuela is a “failing,” if not already failed, state. Is this another symptom of the West’s antipathy towards Venezuela, or is there a real possibility of a failed state in Latin America?
First, it is essential to define the actual criteria for what constitutes a “failed state.” For political scientist Robert I. Rotberg, there are two main criteria: enduring conflict and the inability of the state to distribute resources. According to him, failed states are “tense, deeply conflicted, dangerous, and contested bitterly by warring factions. In most failed states, government troops battle armed revolts led by one or more rivals… It is not the absolute intensity of violence that identifies a failed state. Rather, it is the enduring character of that violence.” This violence usually comes with an inability for the state to control its territory, a drastic increase in crime, and the loss of the government’s monopoly on legitimate violence to warlords and other sub-state groups. Economically, failed states cannot distribute resources to their citizens, are mired in corruption, and experience “declining real national and per capita levels of annual GDP.”
Does Venezuela meet these criteria? Politically, no; economically, yes. Bolivarian Venezuela has not experienced long-standing conflict in the same way that Rotberg’s examples – “Angola, Burundi, and Sudan” – have. In the Latin American context, it has not even had the same level of regular conflict that its neighbor, Colombia, has experienced in dealing with the FARC guerrilla group. As far as government institutions are concerned, the Maduro administration has certainly shifted away from democracy, but it has retained institutions such as the National Assembly. Provided that a military coup does not occur – which cannot be ruled out, given the region’s history – Venezuela’s political system is not failing.
Economically, however, Venezuela does seem to meet Rotberg’s critera for a failed state. The Washington University Political Review writes:
Venezuela is spiraling out of control. Inflation is above 700 percent, and only rising. There are drastic shortages of basic consumer goods. Venezuelans wait in lines several blocks long just to enter grocery stores, only to find empty shelves. Even when certain products are available, the sky-high inflation rate is eating away at Venezuelans’ ability to purchase food, clothing and other necessities. Hospitals are running out of antibiotics and other basic medical supplies; doctors, then, are unable to provide even the most essential care.
This economic turmoil has prompted thousands of Venezuelans to cross the border into neighboring Colombia, who is struggling to provide services to this influx of migrants. Add rising levels of corruption, and Venezuela clearly fits Rotberg’s economic criteria for a failed state.
Venezuela certainly is facing a crisis of epic proportions, but it is not yet a failed state. Its political institutions, while corrupt, inefficient, and increasingly authoritarian, are at least relatively stable and retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over their territory. Economically, the situation is much worse, but Venezuela may still be able to recover by following the lead of other oil-dependent economies such as Russia and Iran. It may be too soon for Western media to declare Venezuela a failed state, but the moniker of “failing” is becoming increasingly apt.
Benjamin Purper is a senior at the University of Redlands, where he studies International Relations and Instrumental Performance.
