Venezuela's
Leftist President Hugo Chavez, recently announced
that he intends to create a new political party
in an attempt to bring under a single umbrella
the host of political organizations that give
support to his Presidency. As a rider to this
announcement, he added he also intends to ask
Parliament to annul the current law that makes
it illegal for any President of Venezuela to serve
more that two terms in Office. On reading this,
my heart sank, as I could envisage yet another
self-inflicted disaster for the Left in the making.
Once a budding Caudillo demands the right to 'serve
the people' in perpetuity, it is a clear indictment
of their failure as a political leader. If a President
or Prime Minister has served out two terms in
office, and in the process been unable to groom
an able and capable group of politicians who can
follow on from them when they have completed their
legally allotted term, then they have failed,
and, I might add, failed dismally.
There
is little doubt in my mind that Hugo Chavez to
date has been an impressive leader, as he has
made a real effort to redistribute more equally
Venezuela's not inconsiderable oil wealth. By
so doing he has offered up a real alternative
to the wretched neo-liberal economics that has
plagued the world since Reagan/Thatcher first
brought this failed and hackneyed philosophy to
prominence.
However,
Hugo Chavez still has five more years to serve
of his second term in office, which should give
him plenty of time to bed down those reforms he
has already put in motion, and allow him to move
forward with his Bolivarian revolution. In the
process he hopefully will also bring to the fore
a group of politicians who will be able to carry
on where he leaves off when he retires from office.
This would make any change in the law about the
length of time an individual can serve as President
unnecessary.
That
power corrupts is not just a cliché but
also a historic fact. Continuous personal power
does more than that. It causes a major blockage
within the political system of any Nation or Political
Party that practices such absolutism. When a leader
refuses to move aside to allow up and coming generations
to take their own place on the national political
stage, so to do their underlings, whose influence
and power stems from the great leader.
Then
what happens is the more able politicians, due
to either a lack of courage or opportunity cannot
bring themselves to Et tu, Brute, leave the field
in search of more fertile ground on which to live
out their lives, unwilling to play the role of
a political Prince Charles, waning away the best
years of their life in silent political servitude,
to an individual who they resent and have long
ago lost all respect for.
The
Leader then ends up with the most servile courtiers
around him/her, and gradually all that interests
El Presidency and his courtiers is surviving in
office. The reasons as to why they first became
politically active recedes into the mists of time.
So to does all thought of implementing progressive
polices, as they are well aware if they do so
it will stir powerful forces in opposition to
their rule, which is the last thing they want
as it may threaten their very survival in office.
Such
a scenario is currently being played out as farce
in London where Tony Blair has lost all touch
with reality. He has surrounded himself with cronies
and courtiers who are ever fearful that they will
become the legal scapegoats for their master's
crimes when he departs the stage; they are doing
all that is within their power to convince him
to stay.
However
nowhere is the folly of allowing political leaders
to outlive their usefulness more clearly demonstrated
in all its awfulness than in the north of Ireland.
The leaders of the two main parties have both
been at the head or their respective Party for
decades. Having gradually surrounded themselves
with gofers and incompetents, neither has an heir
of any standing or real ability.
Even
the most ardent Unionists when in their cups,
will admit to 'Dr' Ian Paisley being a roadblock
to progress within the six counties, rather than
being an individual who could play a constructive
role in finding a way forward. Few doubt that
the six counties would have been a far better
place if the growling tub thumper had retired
from public life long ago. If this had happened,
at the very least Unionists would not have ended
up with the absurdity of the main Unionist Party,
the DUP, issuing a manifesto which highlights
the policies it wishes to implement if it gains
any power, yet refusing to tell the electorate
wether it intends to enter a Stormont 'administration'
post the 7th March election so that they can put
the said manifesto into practice.
Less
the public Bible bashing, much the same could
be said of the leader of the main Nationalist
Party, Gerry Adams. Once Mr Adams found himself
at the top of the greasy pole of northern Irish
Republicanism, he made it quite clear he would
destroy anyone's career who challenged his position,
and indeed he has done this on a number of occasions.
It mattered not a jot to him whether they were
friend or foe, out the door they go if they refuse
to bend the knee to his authority.
There
can be few leading politicians in the world who
have overseen as many defeats and setbacks as
Gerry Adams, yet he has not only remained at the
top of the Republican heap, but also managed to
convinced a majority of his party membership and
an increasing number of the nationalist electorate
that his excreta does not stink.
In
his original bid for control of the Provisional
Republican Movement, Mr. Adams made much of the
setbacks the Movement suffered during the PIRA
ceasefire of the mid 1970s. Yet the aforementioned
errors by the former leadership were mere trifles
compared to what was to occur under Mr Adams.
The most deadly of his errors are still to see
the light of day, but his failure to rotate the
top personnel of the PRM, especially its security
department, typified the man's methodology, which
is based on his own self interest, egotism and
vanity, and which has led at times to the PRM
being brought to its knees.
That
he failed to rotate the upper echelons of the
PRM was no mere oversight on the part of Mr. Adams,
as he was in no position to do so, not if he wished
to maintain his power in perpetuity. How could
he demand that the PIRA senior staff be rotated,
without replicating this process throughout the
whole organization? If he were to do this, it
would have kicked away the building blocks of
his own career, which he has spent decades meticulously
putting into place. Like all bureaucratically
minded politicos, Mr Adams had placed a close
clique of confidants throughout all levels of
the movement; and left them in no doubt that they
owed their position and thus loyalty to the leader
personally.
If
a Scappaticci or Denis Donaldson were to be rotated,
why not Ted Howe, Jim Gibney or any of the rest
of Mr. Adams' kitchen cabinet, plus the close
confidants he had placed throughout the movement,
including those he placed on the PIRA Army Council
to replace himself, Martin Ferris and Martin McGuiness?
Nevertheless,
as its more able militants were either pushed
out or departed the PRM, when they finally realized
the true nature of the man they gave their allegiance
to, Mr. Adams and his gofers to date have been
able to convince those that remained within SF
that black is white and the latest setback is
in reality yet another victory which all
but confirms the old adage that a political party
deserves the leader it gets.
Incidentally, demanding that black becomes white
is a common trait amongst all those with the Caudillo
complex. Although, once they are shoehorned out
of office and one way or another it eventually
comes to them all white always returns
to being black. The first thing that comes crashing
down is the carefully crafted reputation of the
great leader. Few have managed to baulk this judgment
of history, which gives one a little comfort.
The
sad fact is that if many of these people who outstay
their welcome had left office, or stood down from
leading their party after two terms, they would
have left a legacy to be admired. Instead they
almost all end up with a legacy of failure and
bitter contempt.