Post #1372

Some time ago,[1] when facing the systematic deployment of the “caudillo” [leader] archetype by the elites displaced from power during the early days of the Bolivarian Revolution, I pointed out that this discursive practice followed a very particular hagiographical form. Of course, their point was not to justify what would be the equivalent of a “monarch,” but to summon a subject that would be capable of defeating the caudillo: civil society. I wrote then, concerning this discourse: “‘Civil society’ is not just the obverse, embodying the interests of the elites being displaced, but also the reverse of the ‘pueblo’ subject of Chavismo, which still remains invisible, reduced, hidden. Unable, or rather unwilling to recognize any uniqueness in Chavismo, it [the discourse] invariably concludes that Chávez is a reiteration of the secular past, more of the same, the eternal caudillo (along with the masses), a reminder of how much barbarism still exists among us.” In response to this discourse that “tightens and dehumanizes Chávez’s figure (deifying and demonizing him simultaneously) and relegates Chavismo to ostracism, expelling it from the ‘earthly paradise’ of politics,” I argued that it was necessary to “desacralize Venezuelan politics: the way its history is told, the way it is conceived and narrated.” https://venezuelanalysis.com/columns/politics-of-the-commons-earthly-chavez/