On April 14, Venezuelans went to the polls and elected Hugo Chávez’s former foreign minister and vice-president, Nicolás Maduro, president. It was a close race, closer than many thought it would be. The man he beat was Henrique Capriles Radonski, Chávez’s unsuccessful challenger in last October’s presidential election.
It’s been fascinating seeing the response to the death of Hugo Chávez playing out on the web, for it not only confirms his status as a world historical figure, but because of the high symbolism of the event, which clearly exposes the fundamental ideological rift of our days.
Venezuela mourns the death of long ruling President Hugo Chavez. Did he leave the country a better place? Was he a dictator or a populist leader? And what will his lasting legacy be? CrossTalking with George Cicarello-Maher, Alex Main and Alek Boyd.
Colombian author William Ospina recently wrote a column in the Colombian daily El Espectador in which he expressed a level of appreciation for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But what was perhaps more interesting was the kind of response he got for taking what was called a “polemical” position.
We have to recognize the possibility that Chavez could be permanently out of the picture. As difficult as that is to do, it is the duty of the political, social and communicational vanguard to prepare ourselves mentally and spiritually for the worst, so that we can struggle in defence of the Bolivarian Revolution.
By Franck Gaudichaud - Europe Solidaire Sans Frontieres, Dec 25th 2012
In this interview, Marea Socialista members (Socialist Tide) discuss the political significance of Chavez's win in October, the government Socialist Plan for the next period, the opposition campaign strategy, and addressing problems of bureacracy.