Chavez and Ahmadinejad: Strange Bedfellows, Indeed

One of the more interesting photos that came out of the Copenhagen world summit was a photo of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, for the world -- well, the US, specifically -- to take note that this blossoming relationship is turning into an alliance to be reckoned with.

This is curious at best. What about their ideological dogmatism that sets them apart? On one hand, the socialism espoused by Chavez is premised on a materialist philosophy that frames world events into a dialectical conflict of economic interests and disregards religion as an opiate of the masses. On the other, Ahmadinejad’s Islamic Republic of Iran is grounded on politico-religious foundations, aimed at achieving a state of other-worldliness not only for Iran but for the rest of the world. Ahmadinejad is one of the Muslim world’s leaders who believes that the apocalypse is about to come through the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

But it seems such ideological differences do not deter them from embracing each other’s cause.

We’ll take their self-proclaimed piety at face value, since what they are espousing is indefensible, anyway. We’re astute enough, though, to note that what they have is nothing but philosophical adventurism and opportunism, finding commonalities in two things: 1) an understanding that populist politics is what propels tyrants to power; and, 2) that they have found a common enemy in the United States.

Populist politics is a politics of privilege and connections achieved by playing to the crowd. In its political form, it entails winning elections on the strength of a candidate’s charismatic appeal, social standing, and ability to get votes. Once in office, populist politicians set the tone for their agenda. They begin to assume the role of paternal rulers and treat their voters as children to be patronized rather than as constituents to be heard. They speak on behalf of the people for they view the people as too ignorant, impoverished, and undignified to partake in the complicated task of policy-making. Populist politicians have a total disregard for the workings of institutions. They think that they are over and above the reach of institutional checks provided by law.

In its economic form, populism manifests itself in economic decisions that rely on government intervention for solutions. Using a statist approach, a populist government determines which popular economic policies can gain support for itself.

Both Chavez and Ahmadinejad engage in this form of politics. But they get away with it because they have found a scapegoat in the United States upon which to put all the blame, all the ills plaguing their societies. Using the narrative of imperialism, they argue that the division of the world today between rich and poor countries is attributed to a large-scale exploitation by the former over the latter, with the United States as the greatest exploiters of them all. What Chavez said in Copenhagen affirms this: the world is “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships,” for which he got a standing ovation.

P.T Bauer has offered ample evidence debunking the theory of imperialism. Regardless of this evidence – that what cause poverty in many poor ccountries are endemic graft and corruption, ethnic wars, lack of capacities and institutions favorable to material progress, as well as certain cultural values and religious beliefs that do not give high value on material achievements – populist tyrants lie to their people. Instead of making their country move forward by inviting outside capital and harnessing the initiative, creativity, enthusiasm, industry, and diligence of their people, these leaders make them weak and dependent, depriving them of the very opportunities that will enable them to achieve a life of dignity and well-being.

Regardless of their ideological differences, socialists and radical Muslims seem to have found common cause in their self-righteous indignation against America.