Today is election day in Venezuela. The opposition seems united, its candidate, Henrique Capriles, has run an energetic campaign and made a major comeback in the polls. Chavez has survived his health issues (so far), and the vote is expected to be very close.
While it is certainly fair to denounce the dramatic fall in economic freedom, personal freedom, and impersonal rule of law in Venezuela under Chavez, it is also important to remember that pre-Chavez Venezuela was not exactly a democratic paradise.
There is, after all a reason that Chavez was elected and re-elected and re-elected. People think Venezuela is a socialist dictatorship masquerading as a democracy (I don't think this is true), but pre-Chavez Venezuela was an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy.
While it may take 20 years to undo the damage Chavez has done to the economy and the rule of law, in the long run (40 or 50 years), I believe that Chavismo will prove to have been a net plus for Venezuela.
He broke the oligarchy. He gave voice and hope to millions of effectively disenfranchised people. I don't Venezuela can ever go back to the old ways again.
If I can get all Marxist up in here for a minute, to me something like Chavismo was almost an historical necessity for Venezuela given the abuses of the old regime.
For the big finish, I am going out on a limb and predicting a Capriles victory.
Showing posts with label see what I did there?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label see what I did there?. Show all posts
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday morning at the woodshed
Wow. Lant Pritchett absolutely eviscerates the Obama administration over their pick for World Bank President.
Here are some of the salty bits:
“It’s an embarrassment to the U.S. You cannot with a straight face say this person is the most qualified to lead the World Bank.”
and:
Adds Pritchett, nominating Kim “is like picking the short stop for the New York Yankees out of the scrub leagues.”
Finally:
“there’s no question that Kim has done terrific things, but I wouldn’t nominate Mother Teresa to head the World Bank if she were still alive.”
I personally think that the World Bank's composite scorecard is way over par (during its existence, on balance, it's done more harm than good) and favor abolition.
But I don't think the main problem has been choice of leadership.
As Mallaby's superb book "The World's Banker" makes clear, WB Presidents cannot make the behemoth bank bureaucracy march to their own tune.
The problem is institutional, the problem is conceptual, the problem is philosophical. The WB is one of the last bastions of central planning, and it functions about as well as other such bastions have functioned.
Here are some of the salty bits:
“It’s an embarrassment to the U.S. You cannot with a straight face say this person is the most qualified to lead the World Bank.”
and:
Adds Pritchett, nominating Kim “is like picking the short stop for the New York Yankees out of the scrub leagues.”
Finally:
“there’s no question that Kim has done terrific things, but I wouldn’t nominate Mother Teresa to head the World Bank if she were still alive.”
I personally think that the World Bank's composite scorecard is way over par (during its existence, on balance, it's done more harm than good) and favor abolition.
But I don't think the main problem has been choice of leadership.
As Mallaby's superb book "The World's Banker" makes clear, WB Presidents cannot make the behemoth bank bureaucracy march to their own tune.
The problem is institutional, the problem is conceptual, the problem is philosophical. The WB is one of the last bastions of central planning, and it functions about as well as other such bastions have functioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)