On March 9th, an
article was posted on the Economist stating the consequences and criticizing
the actions of the recently deceased Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chávez, while he
was in power. The author begins by describing how Chávez feigned democracy by “mixing
state socialism and populist redistribution with a residue of capitalism ...
and nationalism” and helped communist Cuba abstain from capitalism. The instruments
used by Chavez, according to the author, were his ability to “empathize with
ordinary Venezuelans” and the money from the oil boom which was used “to buy
himself popular support, with social programs and handouts”. The author says
how Chávez’s legacy has followed through and is being used by his successor
Nicolás Maduro to delude the Venezuelans. However, with his passing, his
influence has weakened in other countries that used to be like Venezuela and
the author cites examples of other Latin American countries. The author says
that chavismo has prevented the Venezuelan
government “from fulfilling its potential and uniting behind democracy and open
markets” but that Latin American democrats will have an easier task to
integrate the continent.
The author’s purpose in
writing this article was to inform his readers that Hugo Chávez’s ideas have
been weakened but still persists and through this he tries to persuade his
audience that his intentions were to satisfy his own ends. The choice of words
and selection of detail used by the author shows how he appeared to be against
Hugo Chávez. Many words used to describe his administration were related to manipulation,
delusion, cunning as if he was pretending to help the people, but actually wasn’t.
Also, the author only states the negative side to his rule while he was in
power to emphasize on his inaptitude to truthfully govern the country. Other
countries are used to exemplify the weakening of Chávez’s influence and Brazil
is used to exemplify a true democracy.
Good article choice. Careful with your pronouns (second paragraph). They can be confusing. Clear assessment of the article and good examples of tone words (diction) and lack of balance in presenting anything positive for Chavez's rule.
ReplyDelete