Knowing When to “Shut Up” – And When Not to

An interesting exchange occurred during an open session of the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago yesterday [Nov. 10] with King Juan Carlos of Spain chiding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to “just shut up.” No doubt many share the same annoyance at times regarding Chavez's proclivity to speak his mind in a manner that is often “undiplomatic” to say the least. The exchange came after Chavez had referred to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a “fascist.” Aznar, a Conservative party leader, is a close Bush ally and had backed the US invasion of Iraq against the sentiments of a large faction of the Spanish people. When Aznar was ousted following a popular election, Spain pulled back troops and the country promptly withdrew its support for the US led occupation of Iraq.

Blunt public references are nothing new to Chavez. He referred to US President George W. Bush as the “devil” during an open session of the United Nations, sparking strong criticism. So his negative reference to Aznar, who supported Bush in Iraq, was not totally unexpected. When the current Spanish Prime Minister sought to tone down the rhetoric by stating that Chavez should be more respectful of duly elected officials, despite clear political differences, Chavez attempted to interrupt. His microphone was cut off, and King Juan Carlos expressed agitation by suggesting that Chavez should “shut up.”

An interesting point in these exchanges is that those responding to Chavez do not directly state that Chavez is out of line in the substance of his beliefs, but rather that he is radical and impolitic in his manner of expressing his views. In effect, the major criticism of Chavez lies in his lack of diplomacy. In response to the criticism by current Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, Chavez did not respond to King Juan Carlos, but later commented on Zapatero's speech stating that the legitimacy of a leader derives not only from his plebiscite or having been elected by the people, but from whether that leader’s actions are legitimate uses of authority. Chavez has long contended that the Invasion of Iraq was an illegal and illegitimate abuse of power by Bush and his allies. Chavez has also railed against the US abuse of power in bullying South American nations through exploitive trade policies and through unfair and discriminatory World Bank policies that the US effectively controls.

Chavez is currently on a bit of a tightrope in his own country as well. Current civil unrest in Venezuela over a push by Chavez and his supporters to name him President for life under a new constitution highlights questions of his standing to challenge the overreaching by other political leaders. While admitting that Chavez has done many good things in his own country and for the good of other South American nations, primarily through use of Venezuelan oil resources, his opponents challenge that maintaining regular democratic elections in Venezuela is essential to the country’s forward progress. Centralization and consolidation of power in one person, they argue, is an open invitation to the abuses of power that are a painful characteristic of the nation’s past.

Ironically, Chavez seems to be heading unwittingly down the same road to self-destruction that Bush has traveled. By taking actions to consolidate and abuse power in his own country, Bush undercut his own legitimacy to challenge or criticize others for allegedly “undemocratic” governmental actions. Chavez risks undermining the moral authority that he does wield, albeit undiplomatically, in his insistence upon speaking truth to power. As my grandfather used to tell me, when you point a finger, remember that there are several fingers on your hand pointing back at yourself. Chavez needs to heed that admonition and consider whether his own personal actions and political aspirations are consistent with the principles he applies to others in his public statements.