Alter Hugo

Putin and Chavez in the interior of their countries

Russia and Venezuela turned out to be, at least in part, political allies , including in the fight against the “unipolar” world. Perhaps the similarity between the leaders of the two countries - Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez, who use personal charisma and great popularity among the population to pursue a “statist” course in foreign and domestic policy, also played a role.

Similar countries

Venezuela and Russia, despite all the differences in territory size and population, are countries of the same type. Both are among the world's largest producers and exporters of hydrocarbons. Both have been sitting on the oil needle for a long time, and both have failed to diversify their economies. The main source of their foreign exchange earnings is the products of the fuel and energy complex. Favorable conditions on world markets provide them with high incomes. This objectively predetermines the interest in close cooperation and in developing a unified policy in this area.

Young Presidents

Today, Russia and Venezuela are led by people of the same generation, almost the same age. Putin is less than 55 years old, Chavez is 53. Both have many common features - both purely external and behavioral. Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin found themselves at the top of the power pyramid almost simultaneously, at the turn of the millennium - one in February 1999, and the other at the beginning of the next year, 2000. Both are relatively young, energetic and dynamic, about the same height and build, stocky. They were born into relatively low-income families.

Both come from security forces - Chavez is an army lieutenant colonel, Putin is a KGB colonel. Both are avid athletes - one enjoys baseball, the other judo and alpine skiing. Chavez dreamed of becoming a professional player since childhood. Not everyone in Russia knows, for example, that at the end of an official visit to Cuba in November 1999, he, as captain, led his country’s baseball team onto the green lawn of the stadium.

Both are prone to extravagant and shocking actions. Putin likes to go out on a cruiser on the open sea, watch shooting at a firing range, and drive a tractor in a field. Chavez is not averse to flaunting a paratrooper uniform with a maroon beret, appearing in it in public places and in a high presence, as if emphasizing his unshakable determination to fight his enemies and certainly defeat them.

Russian citizens have long remembered Putin’s words that the authorities will “kill the bandits in the toilet.” Or the ambiguous proposal for circumcision, publicly addressed to a French journalist at one of the press conferences. On the eve of the 1999 referendum, Hugo Chavez, addressing his opponents, exclaimed: “They squeal like piglets when they are dragged into a truck.”

Handshake across the ocean

The heads of state met personally in 2000 in New York, during the Millennium Summit. It is no coincidence that Hugo Chavez was among the three Latin American presidents with whom Vladimir Putin then met. Apparently, it was not only the advisors’ recommendations that played a role. As the Venezuelan president would later say, then this apparently happened at the subconscious level. From that moment on, the leaders of the two countries had an understanding of each other not first-hand, from the media and confidential sources, but visually, which is sometimes more important than hundreds of references and analytical notes.

Hugo Chavez came to Russia on an official visit in May 2001 and became the first Latin American head of state to visit our country after the election of Vladimir Putin as president. The first minutes of the meeting in the Kremlin were particularly emotional. Immediately after the warm and firm handshake, Chavez said he was happy, proud, excited. Putin presented his colleague with the newly published diary of the forerunner of Latin American independence, Venezuelan-born Francisco de Miranda, translated into Russian, who visited Russia in 1786-1787. This unconventional start - a casual exchange of remarks between seemingly long-time friends - created an informal atmosphere on the eve of negotiations in both a limited and an expanded format.

The private conversation between the two top officials, which took place towards the end of the visit, lasted a long time. As a result, the Venezuelan president said at the final press conference that a “strategic alliance has emerged that will undoubtedly have an impact on geopolitics.”

Chavez visited Russia again in October of the same 2001. The work trip turned out to be fleeting. It occurred immediately after the APEC summit in Shanghai. Putin received his colleague only a few hours after returning home. His counterpart, who also spends a lot of time on the road, made a stop in Moscow on the way from Tehran to London. Such a short interval between meetings testified to the intensity of personal contacts between the presidents. Subsequently, Chavez visited Russia three more times. The last time was at the end of June this year, right before the Putin-Bush summit.

Style and methods of government

Putin and Chavez are pronounced statists. They consistently advocate for increasing the role of the state in all spheres of life: economic, political, social, cultural, informational. The specificity of their approach to this, in fact, key problem is most accurately reflected in the phrase of Hugo Chavez: “As much state as is necessary, and as much market as possible.” In form, it is an attempt to find harmony between the market and the state. But in essence - a declaration of the clear advantage of the state over private initiative.

Both Russia and Venezuela have determined the priorities of the state in relation to the interests of the individual. When analyzing the behavior patterns of both presidents, one gets the impression that they are inclined to view the state not as a set of institutions that serve society and are dependent on it, but as a kind of self-sufficient entity, identified with only one real power structure.

Reforms of the political system

Russia and Venezuela are federal republics with very extensive presidential powers. But these powers, according to top officials, are insufficient to implement the plan.

Since Hugo Chavez came to power under the slogan of the need to adopt a new basic law of Venezuela and a radical reorganization of state institutions, he quickly achieved the development and approval of a constitution, the actual dissolution of the highest legislative and judicial authorities and the subsequent relegitimization of power at all levels. Thus pushing the former political elite into the background. Now the upper house of parliament has been abolished as “unnecessary”.

Putin, as is known, began his presidency by building a rigid vertical of power, by dividing the country into seven administrative districts and appointing his representatives there, endowed with high status and broad rights.

Putin then began to reorganize the Federation Council, gradually reducing the powers of the regions in favor of the center. The Federation Council was formed automatically from among the heads of administrations and legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the federation, and Putin reformed the upper house in a very unique way. He replaced the then senators with their representatives, but in fact lowered the level of representation, negating the significance and authority of this structure. Thus, both presidents followed the path of simple solutions, which are not always the best, since they lie on the surface. Chavez abolished the Senate altogether, and Putin reduced this body to the position of an obedient instrument in the hands of the executive branch.

All of the above measures, as well as a number of others, serve as undoubted evidence of the gradual restructuring of states, their transformation into strictly centralized, unitary ones.

As a consolation prize for regional heads, Putin created a State Council with advisory functions. A similar structure, with a slightly different configuration, is provided for in the new fundamental law of Venezuela.

Administrative resource

Both Putin and Chavez skillfully used and continue to use the administrative resources at their disposal. During the 2000 election campaigns, Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez acted practically according to the same scheme. The first - as acting president, and the second - elected in December 1998 and sought re-legitimation 18 months later. They traveled to the regions, spoke to potential electorates long before the start of the official campaign, and repeatedly appeared on television screens on countless news occasions. In other words, they used their official position wisely and added to their assets everything that was inaccessible to their competitors. All sorts of obstacles were put in front of rivals, various obstacles were put in place, in particular, campaigning events were limited to strictly defined boundaries. A similar picture was observed in subsequent presidential election campaigns.

Seriously and for a long time

Judging by many signs, both heads of state intend to establish themselves at the top of power seriously and for a long time. 12 months after Chavez was elected president, a new constitution was approved in a referendum in December 1999. It, along with others, provided for two fundamental amendments. Firstly, the president received the right to re-election immediately after the end of the previous mandate, and secondly, the duration of his powers was increased from five to six years. In addition, in connection with the holding of early general elections in July 2000 and Chavez’s victory in them, the period of his mandate began to count from January 2001. Victory in the elections in December 2006 is a kind of bid to stay on the Olympus of power until 2013.

Now Hugo Chavez intends to extend his powers for an indefinite period, providing a theoretical basis for this. He said: “I believe that if the people wish, they should not be deprived of the right to re-elect any fellow countryman for the third, fourth, fifth or sixth time so that he can steer the ship of state.” Parliament is already ready to support the relevant amendments to the constitution and submit them to a referendum.

In turn, voices are increasingly heard in Russia that the time allotted by the Constitution is clearly not enough for the successful implementation of the president’s programs. Trial balloons are launched at different levels to gauge public opinion. In addition, Vladimir Putin recently spoke on this matter, speaking about the desirability of extending the mandate of the head of state to five or even seven years. Moreover, based on the verdict of the Constitutional Court, he gave the green light to extend the powers of the heads of a number of regions. In the ruling circles of both countries, the idea is constantly being circulated that the current presidents are essentially national leaders whose names are associated with fundamental changes. Accordingly, they must remain at the top of the power pyramid for as long as possible.

In Russia, a new wave of talk about the need to keep Putin in power was generated by Sochi’s right to host the 2014 Winter Olympics. Several Russian politicians have already stated that they see the current president not only as the head of the Olympic organizing committee, but also of the country. Moreover, the Russian Constitution prohibits the head of state from running for only a third term in a row. And “a third term after a term” is legitimate.

Bet on people in uniform

In both Russia and Venezuela, the strengthening of presidential power occurs at the expense of the weakening of its other branches. They all function with an eye on the head of state. Presidents have a clear tendency to promote people in uniform who have filled the power structures both in the center and locally to leadership positions, including elected ones. Heads of state are equally concerned about the strength of their own rears and the loyalty of their immediate circle; they regularly carry out reshuffles and castlings in the power bloc of governments, nominating personally loyal people.

Putin launched a frontal attack on the “oligarchs,” trying to push them away from the levers of political and economic power. In turn, Chavez entered into a tough confrontation with the leadership of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Associations, and is continuously increasing pressure on business leaders.

Both presidents are actually re-privatizing the oil industry. True, in Venezuela, unlike in Russia, nationalization has been officially announced.

Media

There is a similarity or identity of approaches to the vision of such an area as national security. The doctrine of “information security” has been promulgated in Russia. Its goal is to more closely monitor information flows, direct them in the right direction, and put a barrier to the spread of Western pop culture standards. Similar measures are being taken in Venezuela. The parliament approved the bill “On the social responsibility of radio and television,” which the opposition calls a “gag law.”

Both presidents have very unique relationships with the media. The latter are constantly criticized for their distorted coverage of reality, in an attempt to present the actions of the authorities in an unfavorable light, and to focus attention on mistakes and mistakes. Chavez accuses most of the media of "carrying out a terrorist campaign against the Bolivarian revolution." Freedom of speech and press is formally preserved. But he is under severe pressure. Recently, the Venezuelan authorities, solely for political reasons, refused to renew the broadcasting license of the oldest and most popular private television channel, which has been on the air since 1953. Both countries spend a lot of money to improve their image abroad, creating special television channels broadcasting programs in foreign languages.

Foreign policy

Both presidents have points of agreement in their views on the international situation and on the exceptional importance of creating a multipolar world. Russia and Venezuela share the view of the need to counter the power and influence of the United States in the world. The head of the Venezuelan state does not hide his admiration for Putin’s Munich speech and fully shares his position on Kosovo, as well as his opposition to the deployment by the United States of elements of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

Vladimir Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in June 2007 sharply criticized the IMF and the World Bank for not meeting the challenges of the time. In turn, at the South American Energy Summit, held in April of this year, Chavez announced his country's intention to break with these organizations.

Speaking at the Russian-Venezuelan business forum held in Moscow in June 2007, Hugo Chavez emphasized: “Venezuela for America, just like Russia for Europe and Asia, is a source of gas and oil supplies.” And the Venezuelan leader saw another similarity between the countries: “Russia and Venezuela are united by the fact that they are being reborn, getting up from their knees.”

Emil DABAGYAN, leading researcher at the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences