The use of supermarket tabloid headlines hardly seems like a way for a government to govern or to announce complex policy ideas. But while governments in Venezuela, Argentina and Ecuador are not peddling stories about UFOs, chupacabras or Elvis sightings, they have made a steady drumbeat of sensational conspiracies their go-to strategy for connecting with and distracting a weary and increasingly disaffected public.
While using conspiracy theories to consolidate and maintain power has a long, honored tradition in Latin America, the modern variant started with former President Hugo Chávez (1999 to 2013). Venezuelan newspaper Ultimas Noticias once documented that the founder of the Bolivarian government, Chávez, spoke at different times of about 63 different assassination plots supposedly launched against him during his 14 years as president. Recently, the Argentine government has turned out a series of conspiracy theories (some of them far fetched) to deflect criticism of how it handled the suspicious death of special prosecutor Alberto Nisman. And President Rafael Correa of Ecuador has employed the rhetoric of conspiracy when it has been convenient, including in 2010 alleging that the police were attempting to stage a coup d’etat to unseat him.
But the post-Chávez era in Venezuela has raised conspiracy alarmism and propaganda to high art form.
The most recent was the story of a foiled coup plot, an incident the Venezuelans labeled the Jericho Operation. Give them credit, though, they managed to get the international left to believe it. Certainly, the Obama administration’s fumble in placing economic sanctions on Venezuelan officials and labeling the country as a national security threat to the United States aided the Venezuelan government’s outlandish—and unsubstantiated—claims.
Recently, Venezuelan courts convicted eight officers in the Venezuelan Air Force in connection with the Jericho Operation plot; the longest penalty is eight years in prison. Predictably, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro traced the origin of the operation back to the usual suspect: the evil imperialist empire the U.S. plays in many Venezuelan presidential speeches. Maduro went as far as implicating Vice President Joe Biden as one of the plot’s masterminds, which the government claims included plans to use Venezuelan air force planes to bomb the presidential palace and other key buildings. The Venezuelan government also points to a political statement signed by key opposition figures entitled the “National Agreement for Transition,” as the coded signal to begin the coup.
“This transition document, obviously, is not calling for a coup,” says Hugo Pérez Hernaiz, a professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. A sociologist, Pérez Hernaiz, not only studies the rhetoric of contemporary Venezuelan politics, but he specializes in tracking the use of conspiracy theories and how they serve as propaganda. Since 2013, Pérez Hernaiz has tracked these conspiracies on his website, called “Venezuela Conspiracy Monitor.” So far, he has assembled almost 390 entries on a wide variety of conspiracy theories. The Jericho Operation and the transition document are only the latest.
These conspiracies usually lack evidentiary proof. However, Perez Hernaiz says the tactic that makes these theories successful propaganda tools is a daily or weekly discussion of these allegations by various members of the government. This daily verbal bombardment via the government’s news channels or through allies of the international left creates an atmosphere where it becomes easier to succumb to these stories that continually play on political paranoia regarding the region’s struggles with its imperialist past.
It’s that historical legacy and collective sense of victimhood that makes the United States a convenient villain in these theories. U.S. covert operations that supported coups, U.S. supported dictators, and U.S. proxy guerrilla wars can easily be traced back 60 years and open U.S. military intervention going back much farther have created fertile ground for modern-day allegations of U.S. shenanigans. Given President George W. Bush administration’s verbal support for an unsuccessful coup in Venezuela in 2002 to unseat Chavez, when Venezuelans are told the U.S. is cooking up new plots, it seems believable.
Certainly, the use of confessions during Stalinist show trials comes to mind. Another Stalinist tactic that doesn’t get discussed much is the open use of domestic surveillance by Venezuela’s secret police, the SEBIN. Venezuelan government officials claim to have recordings of Ledezma, Maria Corina Machado and other opposition leaders discussing a coup. But in following the usual script, the only evidence released so far are recordings of people supposedly connected to the plot discussing the conversations of the opposition leaders.
Stay tuned, though. The next great conspiracy theory is no doubt being cooked up in a political office in Caracas, designed to excuse the economic mismanagement and slow-motion slide into authoritarianism that has characterized the so-called Bolivarian Revolution.
I appreciate your article here. I’ve listened to Latin Pulse for quite some time now. It’s been a great program to keep me up to date on current events, as well as to provide very interesting analysis.
What concerns me regarding the Venezuelan opposition is the support they’ve received from the U.S. in the past, especially Machado. The reason this worries me is it leads me to believe if they take power they’ll implement the U.S. foreign policy of extraction and subjugation we’ve all grown so familiar to. However, I am not a fan of the current government, either. Do you have any opinions regarding this? Do you feel it’s legitimate to fear the implication a of the Venezuelan Right taking power? You spoke in an earlier comment regarding two wrongs. How would you unpack/discern between two bads (two “evils” is too strong of word)?
Thanks for your support. Although my role here is different because I’m asked to provide analysis rather than interview those providing expertise as I do on “Latin Pulse” I think that is a good reference for those who may feel my views are not sufficiently nuanced.
When I see folks on social media asking for prayers for Venezuela, I think I interpret that differently, because I agree with your fears about the opposition. What choices do those folks really have? This is like reading a book or watching a film where all the central characters are morally challenged, except, of course, people are suffering through the results. Which is why they need our prayers and support.
If the opposition was more credible and could coalesce behind someone providing a third way, that would be optimal. Henrique Capriles has attempted that in his rhetoric but given his background and record, is that entirely believable?
Yes, I think there are legitimate concerns that the opposition just wants to go back to the Punto Fijo period of the so-called “perfect democracy,” which as we know now did not represent marginalized groups and did not seek equity for large numbers of Venezuelans.
What is really needed is the emergence of something like the Sandinista Renovation Movement in Nicaragua. Although that movement never gained traction with the Nicaraguan populace it at least attempted to keep socialist philosophies alive without the compromises of the current FSLN.
Of course, given that track record it is hard to be an optimist.
Hmmm, perhaps you should also explain that the US track record of meddling in LA governments and politics (coups, assainations, civil wars, funding contras etc etc ) is so rich that the current LA populist governments are only tapping into that legacy to fit their own narrative of current events.
referenced. Indeed there is a lot more that can be written about U.S.
imperialism in the region that has continued into this new century.
to ask for and receive long overdue respect.
region to create the propaganda meant to cover their corrupt actions.
As mentioned, in my opinion an explanation of US interference in the region is needed to fully appreciate the sense of victimhood the region has, rightly or wrongly, assumed.
Off course two wrongs don’t make a right, (and no one is suggesting that) but when addressing complex issues one is best advised to call a spade a spade which is exactly what you rightly criticise the Venezuelan government’ of not doing.
In my opinion, this approach to glossing over deep historical issues leads observers to have a bipolar view of the region as one of your colleagues rightly states elsewhere.
I certainly respect that view but I don’t think this piece diminishes the wrongs of the U.S. in the region. I have been writing about Latin America for some time and of course the confines of a short piece like this can’t convey all of that complexity that comes with the totality of my work on the region or Venezuela. But as someone who has been doing this for awhile I also know that I won’t be able to convince you to see all the other parts of that paragraph and not just one word that was used to describe the allegations made by the Venezuelan government recently. Pieces like this aren’t further polarizing the political landscape in the region but they attempt to show just how polarized that rhetoric has become especially in the case of Venezuela. And I’m guessing further discussion in this comments section will also demonstrate that point.