Venezuela smeared in WaPo

Monte Reel’s May 10 article on the crime issue in Venezuela was enlightening, even if it took some reading between the lines to see just how well the facts support the government’s position, which was unrepresented by any quotes in the article. In fact the entire article was an interesting exercise in propaganda. The facts supporting the current government’s policy were mostly there, albeit buried in dependent clauses and otherwise disjointed over the span of the article.

As the article notes, opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias have tried to make an issue out of Venezuela’s homicide rate, which the article notes peaked three years ago at roughly 44 per 10,000 capita-annum in 2003, and has since come down. The United Nations figures cited in the article, readily available online, are restricted to gun homicides but show only 22.15 deaths per 10,000 capita-annum in 2005. Hence, though we are not told how much the homicide rate has come down, it is possible that Chavez has succeeded in reducing it by as much as half.

The article notes that Chavez has prosecuted police, promised reforms of corrupt police departments (which remain mainly holdovers from the pre-Chavez era), has initiated programs to get guns off the streets, and has committed his energies to attacking inequality, which is the single factor that correlates best with homicides worldwide (the second greatest factor is democracy, which has also increased, and the third is prominence of young males in the population, something beyond government control). It may also be noted that his government has covered the bases by also increasing sentences for most crimes.

The article quotes an expert, Rafael Muñoz, as saying that “historically,” Venezuela’s leaders have tolerated crime because it generated fear and made people easier to govern. Muñoz does not specifically name Chavez, however, since his presidency has apparently seen the first sustained decrease in violence in many years.

As a close student of the Americas in the ‘80s and ‘90s, I recall reading a 1996 report of how Venezuela’s homicide rate nearly doubled in the first half of the ‘90s – to less than it is now. Combining this information with that presented in the article, it appears that most of the current crime problem came into being well before Chavez was president, and has declined since. Specifically, the article states that the 1990s saw homicide rates that averaged less than half of the 37 per 10,000 capita-annum averaged over recent years. Assuming they came close to half, then for the ‘90s, which began with so little crime, to have reached this average, I estimate that it must have been about 30 in 1999. In other words, it had already reached crisis levels when Chavez came to power. It continued rising at first, but has since leveled off and has fallen to lower levels than seen in many years.

Chavez’s opponents also apparently believe according to the article that he has stimulated class violence against the rich; but the only named source which the article cites relating to this idea is a psychoanalyst for the rich who has noted the collective increased fear of class violence among the élite; the article presents no evidence that the fear are rational, and in fact its discussion of the fear as a treatable psychological problem suggests it isn’t, but then the article separates the accusation from the therapist’s account by several paragraphs, dissociating the irrational claim from the evidence of its irrationalism.

Finally, Chavez’s opponents argue that he needs to do more thoroughly revolutionize policing, taking on the police as an institution root and branch. The complaint is an odd and contradictory one: generally, the opponents of the Bolivarian Revolution have been negativists who favor the status quo ante. On this issue, however, they have suddenly, without any record of past advocacy, begun to demand revolutionary change. Anyone familiar with the problem of entrenched corruption in police departments, as we have in many American cities, knows just how intractable such problems can be. Chavez has shown more inclination and infinitely greater capacity to attempt such a Herculean task than any of his predecessors or opponents. Hence what his opponents demand is now ironically misguided and opportunistic. If they were serious about police reform, the best bet would be to move to strengthen Chavez, not tear him down.


Here's a drastically reduced version of this post to be sent as a letter to the Post:

Monte Reel’s May 10 article on the crime issue in Venezuela was enlightening, even if it took some reading between the lines to see how the facts support Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. As the article notes, his opponents have tried to make an issue out of Venezuela’s homicide rate, which your article notes peaked three years ago at roughly 44 per 10,000 capita-annum in 2003, and has since come down. (In fact, the United Nations figures cited in the article reflect only half as many deaths in 2005.) Chavez has prosecuted police – something expert Rafael Muñoz calls historically rare, promised reforms of the corrupt police departments left from the previous era, has initiated programs to get guns off the streets, and has attacked inequality, (the factor that correlates best with homicides worldwide). As facts in the article ironically demonstrate, Chavez is the leader best poised to execute the revolutionary reforms championed by his (misguided and opportunistic) opposition.