Julia Blunck writes:
Venezuela is the question on
everyone’s lips.
Rather, Venezuela is the question on reporters’ lips whenever they see Jeremy Corbyn: will he condemn the president, Nicolás Maduro?
What is his position on Venezuela, and how does it affect
his plans for Britain?
The actual problems of Venezuela – a complex country
with a long history that does not start with the previous president Hugo Chávez
and certainly not with Jeremy Corbyn – are largely ignored or pushed aside.
This is nothing new: most of the time, Latin America’s debates are seen through
western lenses.
Of course, the situation in Venezuela is deplorable and
worrying.
But it’s easy to see that concern about Maduro’s undemocratic abuses
don’t necessarily come from actual concern for the welfare of Venezuelan
people.
The country’s president, Michel Temer, recently
escaped measures that would see him put to trial in the supreme court by
getting congress to vote them down.
The case against Temer was not a flimsy or
partisan one: there was a mountain of evidence, including
recordings of him openly debating kickbacks with corrupt businessman Joesley
Batista.
That a president put into power under circumstances that
could be, at best, described as dodgy, manages to remain in power by buying
favours from Congress, even as he passes the harshest austerity measures in the world should be
enough to raise a few eyebrows internationally.
But that has not happened, and
Brazil has carried on as most stories about Latin America do: unnoticed and
uncommented on.
Part
of this discrepancy is of course the bias toward what is flashy.
Stories about
sordid Congress deals are not that interesting to foreign audiences, and even
many exhausted and demoralised Brazilians felt this was simply another addition
to a long list of humiliations that began in 2015 when the economy started to
sink.
Meanwhile, Venezuela has human conflict, the thing that produces exciting
photography and think-pieces, sparks debate and crucially, draws clicks.
There’s only so much attention to be gained talking about Temer’s undermining
of democracy as it happens without noise, through chicanery and articulation by
Brazil’s traditional power: the “Bible, beef and bullets” caucuses in Congress.
Venezuela’s situation, however, is urgent, with tanks on the streets and
opposition arrests.
Yet there is a subtext to why Brazil’s democracy is not as
interesting, and why even Temer’s introduction of the military on to Rio de
Janeiro’s streets to address a crime wave has prompted little response.
Temer’s
rule is one of hard capitalism and an ever-shrinking state.
He has established
a ceiling on public spending, slashed workers’ rights, and imposed a hard
reform of retirement age.
Temer’s
rise to power came as it became clear to big business that his predecessor,
Dilma Rousseff, would not go far with austerity.
They financed and stimulated
protests – largely by rightly angry middle-class Brazilians at what they saw as
widespread corruption – while Congress blocked Rousseff’s bills or sabotaged
her agenda in other ways.
While Temer did not seize power through a violent coup, and the
alliance between Rousseff’s Workers’ party and his notoriously dishonest and
chronically double-crossing party was a largely self-inflicted wound, it bears
remembering that Rousseff was ousted on a technicality so that Temer could
solve the economy’s woes by making “difficult decisions”, a platform for which
he had no electoral mandate.
And
yet the economy continues to sink, as the unemployment rate soars to 13%.
That narrative
isn’t very convenient, though, and nobody is interested in making Brazil the
representative case of how capitalism is an undemocratic system doomed to fail.
And that is quite right: capitalism cannot be exclusively defined by Brazilian
failures.
The same should be true of socialism in Venezuela.
Somehow, though, the conversation about Venezuela is actually a
conversation about something else.
Latin American suffering is being played out
as a proxy for debates in the UK.
As the rightwing media claim, Jeremy Corbyn might not care very much
about the thousands going hungry by Maduro’s hand – maybe he too thinks it is
simply a consequence of American meddling – but it’s hard to believe that the
British right is sincerely committed to the region’s stability and democracy.
There has been very little said about Temer.
Yet, if you live in Brazil where public servants are teargassed for
not being paid for five months, where indigenous rights activists and others
are killed by rich farmers in unprecedented numbers, where several states
declare bankruptcy because of a crash in oil prices, where the army is called
upon to tackle protesters, you may wonder when your situation will be worth debating.
The
answer is whenever it becomes politically convenient.
In the end, British
commentators and politicians on both the left and right aren’t just
opportunistic when it comes to Latin American suffering, they are glad when it
happens: it proves their point, whatever that may be.
Our lives are just a
detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment