I'm never surprised when a couple of the entertainment world's dim-witted buffoons cozy up to some left-wing "champion of the people."
But folks who seem to want to be well informed, yet seriously believe that Chavez should have been revered by Venezuela's disadvantaged masses, ought to step back and think about that for a just moment. Hasn't the world offered plenty of lessons on what forms of governance work, and what do not?
Just look at Botswana and Zimbabwe. Both started from about the same place in the 1960s. The latter killed any potential for growth and development with a repressive, corrupt dictatorship (involving pseudo-elections), and never even made a pretense of bringing about conditions where businesses had much chance of flourishing. But Botswana established markets, private property rights, a semi-reasonable judiciary, and a banking system that actually functions like it's not being run by some sort of self-serving generalissimo.
The results are plain to see. Botswana's GDP/capita is many times that of Zimbabwe.
Chavez was obviously not as bad as Mugabe, Kim Jong Un, or Castro, but his model of governance was much closer to that of Zimbabwe than to that of Botswana. The oil wealth he commanded gave him a chance to pay off enough of Venezuela's downtrodden that many of them think they're "getting a good deal." They are not.
Venezuela's GDP per capita is less that that of Botswana, despite the former's vast oil wealth.
Can you think of an excuse for that?
I cannot.
|
