Autocracy is relative, a tale of two leaders

Name this world leader:

Having secured office, the task of the [leader] is to polarize the political system. This maneuver deflates the political center and maintains unity within one’s ranks. Reducing the size of the political center is crucial for the [leader]. In most societies, the ideological center is numerically strong, a problem for aspiring authoritarians because moderate voters seldom go for extremists—unless, of course, the other side becomes immoderate as well.

The solution is to provoke one’s opponents into extreme positions. The rise of two extreme poles splits the center: The moderate left becomes appalled by the right and gravitates toward the radical left, and vice versa. The center never disappears entirely, but it melts down to a manageable size. Now, our aspiring [leader] stands a chance of winning more than a third of the vote in every election, maybe even the majority.

Hugo Chavez. Sounds a lot like our own George W, does it not?

I receive this magazine, Foreign Policy, I think it is a 'perk' of being a member of the World Affairs Council. I don't usually read it but for whatever reason I made an exception this month. While reading the cover feature entitled "Hugo Boss," I couldn't help but see many parallels between Hugo and W.

For the purposes of this article they have created the term "competitive autocrat" (which was substituted for 'leader' in the first quote block for purposes of suspense and the guessing game). The author claims that the Competitive Autocrat operates in many of the same ways as yesterday's dictator but does so in today's political climate where fleggling democracies are not weak enough to fall to an old fashioned strong man but democratic institutions aren't strong enough to be completely pure.

As I stated, the more I read of this article, the more it sounded like my president. Now, I don't think this article is very well written at all, it seems to be based on some poor assumptions. First, it continually ridicules the support Chavez receives from the poor, as if they deserve less of a voice in democracy. It also assumes that Chavez is (at least somewhat) illegitimate and his presidency illegal and the general tone is that it was written from high atop an ivory tower. I'll be the first to admit that I probably know more about Fernando Valenzuela than I do about the country of Venezuela but this article seemed to start from the conclusion that Chavez is dirty and that is not something that I'm convinced of yet.

Consider this quote and see if it doesn't also fit King George:

He has concentrated power, harassed opponents, punished reporters, persecuted civic organizations, and increased state control of the economy....In Venezuela, one can still find an active and vociferous opposition, elections, a feisty press and a vibrant and organized civil society. Venezuela, in other words, appears almost democratic. But when it comes to accountability and limits on presidential power, the picture grows dark

Does this sound familiar?

As important, Chavez commands the institute that supervises elections...a Chavez controlled election body ensures that voting irregularities committed by the state are overlooked

The article lays out a five-pronged plan for the modern 'competitive autocrat' - starting with an overview:

A competitive autocrat has enough support to compete in elections, but not enough to overwhelm the opposition...Chavez's opposition is too strong to be overtly repressed...So Chavez maintains a semblance of democracy, which requires him to out-smart the opposition. His solution is to antagonize, rather than ban...He has discovered that he can concentrate power more easily in the presence of a virulent opposition than with a banned opposition

#1 Attack Political Parties: Admittedly, this does not fit with Bush. The article describes how Chavez portrayed political parties as evil in order to undermine those currently in power and endear him to the common man. It could be argued that Bush instead demonized the politicians in Washington and portrayed himself as an outsider while retaining his Republican identity and base.

#2 Polarize Society: This is the part that really caught my eye and got me thinking about Bush. The opening two paragraphs came from this entry. I've long recognized that a lot of Bush's (and the GOP at large) power comes from his ability to polorize the electorate. Choose one side or the other; you either want your children to be gay or you are a Republican, you either kill babies or you are a Republican, you are either with Osama or you are a Republican. The divisive politics of fear is Karl Rove's trademark, I can't say for sure that Hugo Chavez engages in this but I know Bush does.

#3 Spread Wealth Selectively: Do I even need to go into this? Bush took the surplus of the 90s and gave it straight to the richest Americans, the ones who supported him most and needed it least.

Chavez’s populism is grandiose, but selective. His supporters will receive unimaginable favors, and detractors are paid in insults. Denying the opposition spoils while lavishing supporters with booty has the added benefit of enraging those not in his camp and fueling the polarization that the competitive autocrat needs.

"Detractors paid in insults" - Whether it's Swiftboating Kerry or Cheney telling Patrick Leahy to "fuck off," BushCo has this one nailed. Unimaginable favors? Whether it's letting oil industry executives set energy policy or putting Brownie in charge of FEMA, Bush loves those that have been good to him, country be damned.

#4 Allow the Bureaucracy to Decay, Almost:

Some autocracies, such as Burma’s, seek to become legitimate by establishing order; others, like the Chinese Communist Party, by delivering economic prosperity. Both types of autocracies need a top-notch bureaucracy. A competitive autocrat like Chávez doesn’t require such competence. He can allow the bureaucracy to decline—with one exception: the offices that count votes.

Bush and the GOP don't believe the government can work, this is an extension and corruption of the 'small government' pillar of conservatism. Bush is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because he believes government can't work, when he allows it to decay he can turn around and say that it is not because of his poor administration of government but because it is inherently broken. Where this article claims Chavez lets everything fall to pieces except the elections department is one issue; Bush spreads his out over two distinct angles; allowing government to rot from the inside out and the separate issue of stacking the deck in the favor of the Republicans:

This task requires a deep understanding of the intricacies of electoral systems, effective manipulation of electoral districting, mobilization of new voters, detailed knowledge about the political proclivities of different districts, and, of course, a dash of chicanery.

If this isn't page 1 of the GOP handbook I don't know what is. Getting the evangelical crowd out to vote, gerrymandering Texas, and having Diebold in your pocket are the Bush manifestations of the accusations leveled at Chavez above.

In the August 2005 elections for local office, for instance, Chavez’s party secured 77 percent of the seats with only 37 percent of the votes in the city of Valencia.

Not quite as bad as gerrymandering Texas but a manipulation of voters interests none the less. Michigan voted for both Gore and Kerry, both Senators and the Governor are Democrats yet it's representation in the House is 9 Republican and 6 Democrat - go figure.

"The legality of many of the government’s strategies is questionable. And that is where controlling the National Electoral Council and the Supreme Court proves useful. To this day, neither body has found fault with any of the government’s electoral strategies." Can you say "Bush v. Gore"? A lack of oversight by other branches of government? Bush hasn't had a real check on his power since he has been in office.

#5 Antagonize the Superpower: Since Bush controls the superpower he instead falls back to antagonizing less-powerful countries in the form of war. You can tell from Bush's swagger that he relishes the role of "war president" - he wears his hubris on his sleeve. Chavez antagonizes the United States to endear him to the leftists in his country and abroad and has an added bonus of pissing off his political opponents. Bush (in part) started the Iraq war to endear him to the far-right in the US and abroad and has an added bonus of pissing off the far-left.

Ultimately, all authoritarian regimes seek power by following the same principle. They raise society’s tolerance for state intervention. [PATRIOT Act?] The more insecurity that citizens face—the closer they come to living in the brutish state of nature—the more they will welcome state power. He knows that citizens who see a world collapsing will appreciate state interventions. Chávez therefore has no incentive to address Venezuela’s assorted crises.

emphasis added

As long as the American people are afraid and believe that the only person (or party) that can protect them is Bush (and the Republicans) no one will question his consolidation of power.

Now, I realize that these quotes are taken out of context and the article as a whole has nothing to do with Bush, but that doesn't change the fact that these passages used to describe and criticize Chavez could also apply to Bush. I encourage you to read the entire article to gain the proper perspective on these quotes. My main purpose is to point out the irony of demonizing Chavez when Bush uses many of the same tactics, for the gain of the right instead of the left.