Report from Venezuela: beating back neoliberalism.

It is possible that when Madeleine Albright and other State Department officials first spoke harshly of Venezuelan presidential candidate "Commander" Hugo Chavez last spring, they had no idea he would become the nation's front-runner in this December's elections. In April, the State Department turned down Chavez's request to visit the United States to meet with multinational representatives. A U.S. spokesman stated that Chavez's coup attempt six years earlier against the government of Carlos Andres Perez had "dishonored" the Venezuelan armed forces, although the spokesman failed to explain why countless other military coup leaders have merited more cordial treatment. Chavez laughed off the visa denial and said that he would apply for a MasterCard instead.

Chavez's short political career has been marked by bold initiatives. The abortive coup he staged on February 4, 1992 against President Perez pitted middle-level officers like himself against the military establishment. The coup was immediately denounced by parties across the political spectrum, but it set in motion street protests that culminated in Perez's removal from office the following year.

Sometime between late 1997, when he took in 5 percent at the polls, and his present ranking which has edged toward 50 percent, Chavez surpassed the front-runner, ex-Miss Universe Irene Saez. Chavez, Saez, and the two other candidates now with the most popular support began their presidential bids virtually without party backing, a telling comment on the bankruptcy of Venezuela's political parties. For years, political parties here, greased by Venezuela's oil-derived revenue, have dominated the political scene, performing favors for their members but not taking into account the nation's collective interests.

The United States has good reason to be uneasy about Chavez. By declaring "I consider myself a humanist, and a humanist has to be anti-neoliberal," Chavez has challenged a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Neoliberalism means government withdrawal from the economy, leaving the nation's economic fate to the private sector. The neoliberal approach in Latin America has translated into polarization between the rich and the poor, and the absence of a strong state apparatus to cushion the impact of globalism (NAFTA-type arrangements which inundate the nation with foreign merchandise). The activist state envisioned by Chavez is a response to nearly two decades of economic instability and crisis in Venezuela, much as the New Deal was a response to the Great Depression. Such policies are a far cry from the despotic plots which Chavez's adversaries accuse him of devising.

The groundswell in favor of Chavez puts the lie to neoliberalism's favorite postulate about the "end of history." According to that notion, there are no genuine alternatives to liberal democracy coupled with a laissez-faire economy. But Chavez's candidacy demonstrates that a neoliberal consensus has not emerged in Venezuela. Furthermore, his success has originated not from intellectuals, political parties, or the mass media, but from ordinary Venezuelans.

Chavez's rise is also significant for what it says about economic and political conditions in Latin America. Anti-neoliberals like Chavez have offered foreign capital guarantees, while eschewing intransigent positions. He pledges not to revoke the recent contract privatizing steel in Venezuela, even though he opposed relinquishing state control of this "strategic" sector of the economy.

Chavez's personal style has served to calm some fears regarding his alleged despotic intentions. It is true that Venezuela's minuscule Communist party endorses Chavez and that his two top campaign advisors are leftists. But sympathetic Congressman Carlos Melo told me "Chavez comes off as anything but an overbearing leftist or authoritarian military officer." He added that Chavez quotes Pope John Paul II, the Bible, and various outstanding nineteenth-century Venezuelans. Chavez advocates convoking a constituent assembly in which the organizations of civil society (such as neighborhood and professional associations) would play a major role in drafting a new constitution. This proposal points in the direction of an innovative model in which the masses are better represented in government. Regardless of whether the United States likes such proposals, it should recognize that, following nearly two decades of poor economic performance, they have struck a responsive chord in Venezuela.

Political commentator Andres Galdo, who hardly sympathizes with Chavez, has warned that the "Stop-Chavez Campaign" - in which Chavez's rivals are uniting and aggressively concentrating their fire against him - could create an atmosphere conducive to electoral fraud, assassination, or a coup. And recent advice from J.P. Morgan and Moody - that investors think twice before purchasing Venezuelan government bonds - has added fuel to the fire. Chavez's adversaries attribute the freeze of foreign investment and capital flight to the "Chavez effect."

In private, however, influential business and diplomatic circles in the United States (such as former ambassador Ambler Moss, now at the University of Miami), are fearful that Washington will be left in the cold should Chavez become president. They argue that a U.S. declaration pledging active support for whoever wins the December election would send a clear message, particularly important given Venezuela's forty years of relatively stable, competitive democracy - a South American record.

Steve Ellner, a previous contributor to Commonweal, teaches economic history at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela.