The challenge of Bolivarian Geopolitics - Multipolarity vs. Social Justice in Libya

The deeply problematic position of the Chavez regime in reference to the outbreak of popular democracy in Libya reveals the contradictions inherent in the Bolivarian revolution, particularly its need for a multipolar world. Chavez certainly has made a public display of support for the most troubled regimes, one can recall Bush's 'Axis of Evil' in particular, and while it has worked for him in the past as a symbolic gesture of independence, he has now made the wrong call.

He is supporting a regime anathema to the tenets of Bolivarian socialism, with its foundation in constitutionality, popular elections, and redistribution of wealth, in the interest of making his point on multipolarity heard. While this won't be the end of the Chavez regime, and it's certainly not his first mistake, it reveals the need for real, democratic opposition in Venezuela. Chavez must make room for this opposition, but he cannot create it, and mistakes like these are far easier in the context of the polarization of Venezuelan politics: US-backed fascism vs the Chavez regime.

This has been the axis of contradiction in the 5th republic since its inception, and is an example of the ossification of the Bolivarian revolution. Chavez should be taken to task for his decisions, but who has the legitimacy to do so? The US has consistently supported the ugliest regimes in both Latin America and the Middle East, and has shown itself unable to respect real democracy in either region, preferring coups to real elections, occupation and siege to democracy. The future of both regions will improve with a real, determined change to US foreign policy, one that takes its lumps in the democratic arena, and supports democracy, full stop, not 'American Interests'. Lest we forget, Gaddafi was also a client of the United States, after his announcement of support for the War on Terror, a stance that did not change under the Obama government, until Gaddafi's instability became evident this year.

But perhaps a simple change in the rhetoric of empire isn't sufficient. Chavez's demands for a multipolar world have some real merit, if flawed in execution, as seen in great detail elsewhere on Narconews. The question Chavez is asking - should any single nation, regardless of how committed to social justice, really have the power to determine the fate of nations and peoples worldwide - is a valid one. There is clearly a lack of vision internationally, in the UN, in the EU, in the halls of power, which continue to maintain the tired geopolitics of power and market access at any cost. Fortunately for the Chavez regime, and for the rest of us as well, there is a real, but far from guaranteed potential for a new pole of popular power in the Middle East, one that if allowed to blossom, could alter geopolitical visions of the Middle East in dramatic, meaningful ways. That said, what remains to be seen is if Chavez can be convinced to change the course of Bolivarian geopolitics, and return to the side of social justice, both in Libya and beyond.

Far from excusing Chavez for his actions, we should read these events as a signifier of the flaws of Chavismo, but also of geopolitics writ large. Chavez will maintain his support at home with his more successful domestic programs, but his insistence on support for Gaddafi will be a black eye on the international face of his regime. What is evident here are the concrete dangers of looking at the world through a geopolitical lens, be it US-Centric, or Bolivarian in nature.