Whatever happened to America's backyard? It has rightly been seen as rather facile to attribute every calamity in countries of the Americas south of the Rio Grande to America. The United States is no longer the key regional player in Latin America. On matters of substance, the leaders of Latin America could be said to be broadly in tune with their people as never before, writes Gamal Nkrumah. President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Hugo Chavez has been instrumental, not only in galvanising the resurgence in democratic politics in South and Central America decisively towards the left, but also in moving the continent decidedly towards economic integration and political unification. Realistically, something less ambitious than the European Union may have to do. Yet there is a camaraderie among Latin American leaders that is conspicuously lacking among their European counterparts. Peru's President Ollanta Humala landed at Jose Marti International Airport in Havana, not on an official state visit to Cuba, but chiefly to check on the health of President Chavez who is recovering from cancer surgery. Earlier, Argentinian President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner flew to Cuba to enquire about the health of Chavez. When Chavez was re-elected as Venezuelan president in October 2012, in an unprecedented move the Argentinian president took to twitter and dispatched five tweets in quick succession congratulating Chavez and Venezuela. “Your victory is also ours,” she openly declared. “Christina, this victory is also for Argentina,” Chavez reciprocated. The dynamics of South American politics is fast changing, not only at the local level but also on a continental scale. While economic ties with the United States in particular have not been entirely severed, Washington's hegemony and prestige have seen a serious setback. It is far more meaningful for Humala and his Argentinian counterpart to cultivate closer relationships with Chavez than with any United States statesman. That comradeship requires the Latin American leaders to keep the show on the road. And, they do. Three Latin American presidents were in Caracas in a show of solidarity with Chavez. “We have come here full of love for Chavez, for Venezuela and full of love and care for all the people of the region,” President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua summed it up when he turned up in Caracas to support the Supreme Tribunal of Justice's decision to postpone the taking of the presidential oath of the mandate 2013-19. No less than 22 Latin American and Caribbean leaders gave their stamp of approval by signing “The Declaration of Caracas” reiterating their commitment to support Chavez and Venezuela and its institutions. This would have been unthinkable barely two decades ago. And, this is to a large measure due to the Bolivarianism espoused by Chavez. The ailing Venezuelan president has tirelessly fought for South American political unification and economic integration. Bolivian President Evo Morales was equally forthright. “Chavez started to challenge the Empire... now many of us in Latin America no longer have US bases or gringos that come to give us orders on the pretext of the war on drugs,” Morales told jubilant crowds at a rally in Caracas. Morales hit the nail on the head when he declared that it was the natural resources nationalisation policy initiated by Chavez that dramatically changed the face of Latin America and re-interpreted its relationship with the US. He cited his own country Bolivia as an example. Inspired by Chavez and the Venezuelan example, revenues from Bolivia's oil industry skyrocketed from $300 million when US multinationals were in charge to $4 billion today. Ecuador's President Jose Mujica who was also in Caracas was equally candid. “I respect above all a man who is battling for life and who is in the hearts of all of you. That is what makes sense. But if tomorrow he is not with us, unity, peace and unfinished business must prevail, my dear comrades,” Mujica spoke at the Presidential Palace of Miraflores in Caracas. Mujica uttered a basic truth, namely that Chavismo and Bolivarianism will survive Chavez. Chavez prefers the pursuit of principle and so do his people. That is why he won 55 per cent of the Venezuelan electorate's vote in spite of the Machiavellian machinations of his detractors and political foes, both at home and abroad. His main opponent garnered only 44 per cent in the 7 October elections. It is against this backdrop that in a letter from Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and delivered by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, Correa reiterated the reasons for the popularity of Chavez among the poor, in particular of Latin America, and that it is — in spite of impressive economic growth rates in recent years — still a developing continent. “We are here to renew our commitment to the political process you are undertaking,” Correa addressed Chavez and the Venezuelan people. Come what may, only a fool would make firm assertions about the future. The Venezuelan people, led by the red shirt Chavistas, held a massive rally in Caracas that was sanctioned by Latin American leaders. It effectively legitimised Chavez's reinstatement in absentia. The intriguing question is what Latin Americans would do with their accumulating surpluses. Will they vote en masse for left-leaning governments like that of Hugo Chavez? Will men like Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro fend off the capitalist-inclined American lackeys such as Henrique Capriles Radonski and steal the show if, God forbid, Chavez succumbs to his illness and passes away? In raising these questions, one is acutely conscious that Africa and the Arab world must make a stark choice. The Africans and Arabs must either embrace their own versions of Chavismo and Bolivarianism with the priorities and mores of contemporary democracies and collaborate closely in the political and economic arenas or dive headlong into their own reactionary abysses.
