by Marco Aurélio Nogueira

The attempt by Venezuela´s President Hugo Chávez to maintain his rule by a plebiscite has been seen as anti-democratic by some Brazilian politicians. In a speech in New York on November 30, former president Jose Sarney accused Chávez of wanting to make a “socialist revolution” and criticized Venezuela´s arms-purchasing program which he said could lead to an arms race in Latin America. Commentators in the Brazilian media have accused Chávez of interfering in the affairs of other countries, like Bolivia and Colombia, and using Venezuela´s oil wealth as a means of gaining influence. In this article, Marco Aurélio Nogueira, professor of political theory at São Paulo State University, Unesp, criticizes Chávez´s histrionic style of leadership and laments the lack of statesmen in today´s world. He also takes Brazil´s President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to task for comparing Chávez´s aim to hold onto power with prime ministers in parliamentary systems who have held power for long periods.

The extraordinary slanging match between King Juan Carlos of Spain and Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, at the Ibero-American summit in Santiago at the beginning of November, must have led many people to think that the kind of statesmen we used to know are no longer around. Harsh words, rudeness, verbal aggression and bad tempers are not uncommon in the world of politics so we should not be scandalized when a king and president exchange barbs and swear words no matter how unpleasant it is and the bad impression it gives. Forgetting the fact that the summit meeting produced little of importance, the argument between the two leaders highlighted the sorry face of current politics – the non-communication, lack of substance and gratuitous theatricality.

We should now be used Chávez´s histrionics since they are an essential part of his being. Without histrionics there is no Chávez. This is his way of exercising control and dominating the scene: causing a row, grabbing the stage and using hyperbole as if winning in politics depended not on the basis of your argument or message but verbal bombast, demolishing or overwhelming your adversary, being obstinate, and determined to win every confrontation and discussion.

We cannot criticize Chávez for having such a high opinion of himself since he is, in fact, extremely popular. His government does not seem to be driven by any particularly brilliant idea but Chávez has proved to be very effective in the way he relates to his people. This shows that in Venezuela, at least, his political style works. However, to be a statesman do you need be a talented communicator, aggressive and have popular support? After all, we could ask whether King Juan Carlos acted in a statesmanlike manner when he told Chávez to shut up in order to defend the colors and honor of Spain.

We can complete this little gallery of political faults with the enigmatic comment on democracy, systems of government and holding on to power by Lula some days later. Lula defended Chávez from accusations of being anti-democratic within the context of "respecting every country´s sovereignty”. He also overturned political theory and defined democracy as a system based on the one rule of having permanent popular support. He underplayed the fact that Chávez wanted to remain in office and used as similar examples the long periods in which some prime ministers have held power claiming that there was no difference in this aspect between a presidential and parliamentary system. 

Statesmen, for their part, are not leaders who rule by popular support and pride themselves in being intransigent in support of their country. We expect more from them than this. They are not necessarily highly educated and courteous but we expect them to maintain certain standards of respect and civility and give priority to following institutional rules and diplomatic procedures.

Statesmen are outstanding because they embody a society or a nation which includes more than it excludes, offers a realistic, desirable future and a dignified life for all, not only for those on their side or who think like them. They do not stand out because they have charisma or because they are loyal to their people´s traditions, although this may be important. Their main difference lies in their ability to reconcile differences, unify and organize differing views within a state and political community.

From this point of view, ours is a dark, rather depressing age, with lightweight leaders who act more like administrative operators than creators or builders of consensus.Statesmen are in short supply because there are few talented politicians around. For want of passion and sense and a lack of coherent institutional frameworks, politics is not producing the best leadership. Statesmanship is scarce because leaders no longer know how to comply with their essential function of uniting the people and organizing social development. Societies in the era of global capitalism are too fragmented and individually minded for anyone to articulate and mobilize them to operate in a collective and sustainable way just by snapping his fingers.