Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, international
politics & civilization.
Saturday's
Lagniappe
Interview
with Michael Rowan : "Rosales,
not Chávez, could defeat poverty in Venezuela"
El
Universal
Political
consultant,
Michael Rowan
By
El Universal
Michael
Rowan, the author of "Getting Over Chavez and Poverty,"
which appeared in Venezuelan bookstores November 6, talks about
his book in the following interview. Rowan, originally from
New York, is a political strategist with experience in 14 nations
since 1970. He moved to Venezuelan in 1993 and is a regular
columnist in several Venezuelan newspapers.
Q.
Why did you title your book "Getting Over Chavez and Poverty?"
R. Because Chavez is not running a revolution for the poor and
it would be nice to have one. Chavez could easily have halved
poverty in Venezuela in the last 8 years, but he chose not to
do it. That's where the title comes from - Venezuela has to
get over Chavez and then it can get over poverty.
Q.
Where did Chavez go wrong, as you see it?
R. He made the same old Venezuelan mistake. He believed that
the state and not a free society could eliminate poverty. Total
state control of the economy made poverty and corruption worse,
which has been the problem for decades.
Q.
But how can a free economy eliminate poverty?
R. Just as it has always done all over the world -- by using
the classical economic tools of wealth creation. If the tools
are there, poverty will fall.
Q.
What economic tools are you talking about?
A. First, private property titles to their homes - not a 'right
to occupy' property owned by the state, which is useless as
collateral at the bank. Second, direct access to some oil funds
to sow in family investments of their own choice - not state
handouts of oil money with political strings attached. And third,
formal private enterprises that can make them rich through hard
work - not state socialist collectives that are beehives for
theft, politics and crony capitalism. The poor can make themselves
rich with tools that are denied to them by the Chavez government.
Q.
This sounds like "Mi Negra Tarjeta" and Manuel Rosales
- are you behind his campaign?
R. I met Governor Rosales in July to discuss campaign strategy
and gave him a copy of my book. Rosales is very open to ideas
and better than that, he applies innovative ideas. Rosales manages
for results. Look at the difference between Zulia and Caracas.
Zulia works, its highways and bridges are functional, and the
public hospitals aren't death-traps as they are in Caracas.
Rosales, not Chavez, could defeat poverty in Venezuela.
Q.
Do you believe Rosales as the unified opposition candidate for
president can win on December 3?
R. Yes, it's possible, and precisely because he is not the opposition
as much as a viable proposition candidate. Rosales wants to
eradicate poverty in Venezuela, and he knows how to do it. He's
different.
Q.
How is he different? Mi Negra sounds like the same old populism
of the Adecos and Chavez.
R. Providing 20% of the oil wealth directly to poor families
and the unemployed is a radical, revolutionary departure from
Chavez, AD and Copei. It could also double the size of Venezuela's
economy in the short term.
Q.
But can Venezuela afford it?
R. Easily. Imagine that Chavez had provided the $50 billion
in foreign giveaways since 2004 to Mi Negra.A $50 billion investment
in millions of families could have cut poverty and unemployment
in half while potentially adding five times that amount, or
$250 billion, to Venezuela's GDP. When poor families spend Mi
Negra funds on housing, property, enterprises, and equipment
they produce new jobs and wealth for Venezuelans - and tax revenues
to government. Subsidizing the Cuban regime or buying Argentine
debt does none of that but hasten the day for the next crash.
Q.
In your view, when will that crash come?
R. It's here right now. The world oil price has fallen 25% from
its $78 high, and it will fall more. Chavez is running a $2
billion deficit already which will mushroom in 2007. His domestic
subsidies, foreign giveaways and internal corruption will collapse
the economy, which has few tools for private wealth creation
to pick up the slack. Instead of saving oil money when the price
was high, Chavez was borrowing and spending money that didn't
exist. Now Venezuelans will pay the price for that stupidity.
Q.
In your book you write that direct family investments of oil
wealth can also reduce government corruption. Explain that.
R. The state doles out the oil wealth through a transaction
system that steals up to 80% of the funds via corruption, middlemen
and political "administrative costs." That was the
case under Caldera's Agenda Venezuela programs for the poor,
and it is the same under Chavez' missions, both of which have
had a minimum effect on poverty. If you want to get money to
the poor, give it to them directly at an ATM and get rid of
the political middleman commissions.
Q.
Do you really believe that Venezuela can eliminate poverty in
a handful of years even if it does all the right things?
R. Yes, through common sense and hard work it can be done. In
my book, I describe how another oil state, Alaska, reduced poverty
by 75% and equalized income better than any of the 50 states,
by applying the same tools - an open society, a respect for
private property, enterprises for the poor, and oil funds directly
to families. In a little more than one generation, most of the
indigenous poor of Alaska entered the middle class and Alaska's
GDP grew from $3 billion to $40 billion. Venezuela can do the
same, as Arturo Uslar Pietri said repeatedly for 50 years.
Q.
So Venezuela's mistake was nationalization of oil?
R. Not necessarily. Norway nationalized oil but also has a strong
and competitive private oil sector that competes on the same
level field as Statoil. PDVSA the way Luis Giusti led it was
a force for an open society, meritocracy, and competitiveness.
My point is not about national oil companies, it is about states
that monopolize command economies and foster poverty and corruption.
Q.
You write that the export of the Chavez revolution is nonsensical.
Why?
R. The facts of economic history show it is a worthless idea.
Since 1820, world population has increased by six times. Income
in the poor nations increased by over five times, and in the
rich nations, nineteen times. For a thousand years before 1820
everybody was poor. The reasons the world progressed so much
since 1820 are technology and trade, private property and finance
- the Enlightenment. China, India, Mexico and Brazil get it,
but Chavez does not. Chavez is exporting failure to a successful
world, which is why he's surrounded by losers.
Q.
Losers such as?
R. Cuba, the FARC in Colombia, Libya, North Korea, Zimbabwe,
Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraq when Saddam Hussein was there
- all modern misfits who terrorize or destabilize the world.
They have no answer but terror, warfare and hate - what's so
new about that?
Q.
You disagree with Chavez at the UN calling Bush the Devil?
R. I am no defender of Bush, I worked in the Democratic campaigns
of Presidents Clinton and Carter - sorry about Carter, come
to think of it, what he has done here is a disgrace. But the
Chavez attack on Bush was ignorant. Chavez has no solution to
poverty, corruption or insecurity. He is not interested in development
or democracy but how to subvert both and take power for himself.
Soon he will fail, as bin Laden will fail, but a lot of people
will die in his quixotic crusade -- and most of them Venezuelans.
Q.
So you don't see the US as the Evil Empire?
R. That's political rubbish and even Chavez knows it. No country
in since World War Two has entered the First World of nations
without using the US market as its engine for growth. Venezuela
can do the same by leveraging its oil to attract investment
in its renewable resources, especially tourism. That means Venezuela
has to open up to the world, not close down or tell the world
it has to change. US policy should encourage the tools of wealth
creation among the 213 million poor Latin Americans, 15 million
of whom live in Venezuela.
Q.
Yet the polls show Chavez at 50% or more of the vote, supported
mostly by the poor? How do you explain that?
R. The Chavez voters are in deep conflict.. They favor private
property, Mi Negra, and working with, not against the US. And
they oppose the foreign giveaways, the subsidies of Cuba and
Argentina, and association with rogue regimes like Iran and
North Korea. But half of the Chavistas are on the government
payroll directly or indirectly, and the other half are on the
waiting list with great expectations for handouts. They are
in a desperate situation, knowing there is no economic future
with Chavez versus wondering whether Rosales can be trusted.
Q.
So what's your prediction for December 3rd?
R. Whether a fair election will occur on December 3rd is doubtful.
But Venezuela has changed. With Rosales, Venezuela has found
a unified messenger with a message for the poor that can defeat
poverty - there is a national consensus on that. So the alternative
to Chavez is clear and present, and it can work. When Venezuela
gets over Chavez is just a matter of time, and then it can get
over poverty. That time may be now.
__
Michael Rowan
is a political consultant who came to Venezuela for the 1993
presidential campaign. A former president of the International
Association of Political Consultants, Rowan's column has been
carried by El Universal for ten years. He worked in the Democratic
campaigns of Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Now,
he is a strategic consultant for Venezuelan presidential candidate
Manuel Rosales ( michaelrowan22@gmail.com).
Petroleumworld
not necessarily share these views.
