IRAN IS OUR ALLY AND AHMADINEJAD IS IN MY COUNTRY

On the 13th of January, 2007, the government of my country enthusiastically embraced––for neither the first nor last time––the cabal-appointed head of state of one of the most reactionary, unabashedly theocratic regimes in existence today. I was watching the solemn proceedings on the government television station, Venezolana de Television, and the thought came to me instantly: In Venezuela political life has acquired, since Chavez took office in 1999, the strange and rather entertaining ability to parody itself––events no longer require an insightful remark from the skeptic or civil dissident to appear as the absurd exercise in ignorance and contradiction that they are. The ironic sight of a Bolivarian "revolutionary" and celebrity leftist engaged in political consolidation with a misogynistic demagogue who'd been catapulted shadily into office by a group of Imams, was, to my mind, something to cry about as well as to laugh about.

The economic reasons for this union are easy enough to see. Clearly, this is a relationship lubricated in oil, a friendship established with the ultimate aim of prodding OPEC to lower production quotas and thus inflate world prices for crude––a scenario that would benefit both the Iranian and Venezuelan administrations, who are fundamental examples of what Thomas Friedman has called “Petro-authoritarian” states. The fiscal destiny of their corrupt and bloated government infrastructure is––in lieu of any self-sustaining economic policy that might have had a chance of generating long-term growth––dependent on their ability to influence OPEC. If oils prices drop, so do their approval ratings, and while neither head of state is regarded as a staunch defender of democratic principles and civil liberties, Chavez especially does not enjoy the complicating prospect of massive popular unrest and the high political cost of an ostentatiously state-enforced suppression, clear for all the world to see.

There is secondly, and perhaps more importantly, an obvious ideological facet to this form of political fraternity that is impossible to miss. The Chavez administration, which shares with many countries in the world today a clear feeling of abject contempt for the current U.S. Administration, does not likewise share a sense of modesty or diplomatic propriety when showing said feelings. If anything has truly distinguished Chavez’ term in office, either internationally or domestically, it must surely be his very passionate denunciation and vilification of the temporary head of state of the United States, George Walker Bush, whom Chavez has directly and repeatedly insulted, at press conferences and more comfortably at length during his weekly television show, Alo Presidente. His adamant and vitriolic political sermons, delivered from popular balconies or plazas to thousands of red-clad, feverish followers, during which he declares with absolute faith that every ill in the world stems from the innate evils of “imperialismo neoliberal norteamericano”, have helped to convince many in the ideologically omnivorous, loosely-organized civil alliance known as La Oposicion (essentially anyone who consistently votes against Chavez ) that their current chief executive and principal adversary is––not even a real revolutionary with dangerously radical ideas––but a mere ideocrat and bombastic entertainer of the masses; indeed, Chavez has on numerous occasions shown himself to be exceedingly capable of weaving simple-minded geopolitical myths (America is evil and will destroy us, ergo only socialism will save us) that fit the self-righteous and self-pitying sensitivities of the collective imagination. There are those who rightfully have, and I proudly count myself among them, a long list of legitimate and epistemic criticisms of US foreign policy in Latin America, both regarding the past (during which there are horrific grievances) as well as the diplomatic skirmishes of today.

What the Chavizta camp is on to, however, is something fundamentally different in nature. The myth Chavez presents to those who congregate around him––a puerile story at all times tinged with the infantile rhetoric of melodrama––about a Fascist America and the noble cause of resistance to its insidious plans for world domination, is a progressively efficient and beautifully prepackaged story almost exactly similar to the one a politician like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is currently unraveling for the Iranian people. A few semantic difference aside––such as opting for a cheap brand of populist pseudo-marxist allegory as opposed to appealing to extreme religious sensitivities and paranoia––it seems both heads of state find themselves in the exact same camp in relationship to that one country neither of them can stop obsessing about.

In this sense, their apparent allegiance to each other’s cause seems logical enough, but the politics of each of these governments is not nearly as important, in today’s highly volatile world, as the loud and public celebration of these politics. These are governments who not only loathe the United States. These are governments who––like most who share deep-rooted contempt for American foreign policy––gain political power by keeping their dogmatic sentiments on clear view at all times. Both governments have a vested interest in declaring and demonstrating and loudly flaunting, in front of their impassioned constituents, their shared hatred for The Great Satan. They are show-men, above all else, and their constituents are demanding audience members. The America-hating myth they stand on in order to rule, which they have nourished in blind self-interest for all their years in office, must be fed constantly, and must keep on growing in order to support their ever-expanding and progressively destabilizing political agenda. The strength of their highly volatile popularity is, to a greater and greater extent, dependent on their ability to insult the Great Satan unabashedly and unflinchingly.

The precepts of this political mythology of cosmic revolution have convinced Chavez’ followers that only Chavez possesses the courage, valor, and irreproachable vitality to stand up to America, and that is why he must remain leader of the state indefinitely––because it is only he that can save the State, la patria. In this way, operating under the inflamed direction of a well-crafted public relations machine, the State manages to fool the people and compel its still-to-this-date disenfranchised and impoverished constituents to equate a potential presidential impeachment with treason to the republic. This is not, by any means, a new trick, and there are probably few who will disagree with the assertion that the history of twentieth century totalitarian politics is a long list of this surreptitious practice, this establishment of political equivalency between what is country and what is leadership, between what is essentially abstract and eternal (the spirit of a nation, say) and what is tangible and temporary (the mortal mammal temporarily chosen to administer the top functions of the state). The broader the difference between these two concepts in the minds of a country’s citizens, the greater the level of individual freedom there will be.

When in Venezuela I witness the pathologically fascist need to worship, glorify, and elevate the chief executive to the level of prophesied savior of the republic I am not only disturbed; I am, with my mind’s eye to the history of the twentieth century, experiencing the most horrifying and alarming sense of deja vu, as well as absolute impotence. Certain terms used (and perhaps even misused) by our president during recent speeches also help to increase this state of perpetual anxiety in at least forty percent of the voting population. And these fears will not be assuaged by a spineless commitment to complacency and cheap compromise that some apathetic and frightened members of civil society are even today willing to bargain with. This escalating agenda of state-endorsed demagogy must be met and treated with the seriousness it deserves, lest it become what we have already seen it become in other countries and in other times. After all, who among us would claim to ignore where the current state of affairs will eventually take us? As I listen to Chavez pontificate for hours during well-attended public rallies about his great project for National Socialism, I know that I am witnessing a politician make an absurdly provincial––yet perhaps not entirely accidental––mistake that finally corroborates what I had always suspected.