1 litre of milk costs about a third of the average wage, 1 kg of powdered milk eats up approximately half and a loaf of bread is almost a quarter. Prices double nearly every 15 days! Even the revised IMF year-end inflation projection for the country is 200,000%! Over 3 million people have immigrated, and expectations are that next year this exodus could reach 8 million! Welcome to Venezuela! For a country that was the richest economy in South America and has the largest proven reserves of oil in the world, this is a sorry sight indeed. With 300 billion barrels of crude oil and boasting 20% of global reserves, Venezuela should have been the shinning beacon of the Western hemisphere. What went wrong? And more importantly, what parallels can Pakistan draw from this sad episode? To the first question, a lot! To the second, many! Consider. When democracy was founded in Venezuela in 1958, a three-party system merged into two and agreed to share power and the massive oil revenues amongst themselves and their constituents and supporters respectively. Thus, the very pact meant to secure democracy, came to dominate it. This introduced a ruling elite in the country who supported their own candidates, blocked entry of fresh blood in the democratic system and practiced reactive politics. Suffice to say that this agreement between the two parties equated to fostering corruption at a large scale. In Pakistan – until now, it was also a two-party system fronted by the erstwhile PPP and PML(N). Even now, they have their own ruling clique and a broader understanding of sharing wealth amongst themselves. Charter of democracy anyone?! Years went by with the above dispensation until Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999 and embarked upon a wide range of reforms. Strategic among these were restructuring the judiciary and abolishing the upper house. The former initially seemed helpful but the latter was seen as curtailing the nature of checks and balances that is inherent in a strong democracy. Chavez was begun to be seen as more and more authoritarian in nature as he curtailed the powers of institutions left, right and centre! He saw himself as ‘all in all’ for the people of Venezuela. In Pakistan’s case – Nawaz Sharif’s government was ousted in 1999 – ironically, when Chavez came to power – but not before Nawaz had embarked on a similar path to become ‘all things to all people’! His ambitions to accrue absolute power reflected in his move to declare himself ‘Amir-ul-Momineen’ (Leader of the Believers)! Fortunately, or unfortunately he fell afoul of the military and couldn’t reach the totalitarianism notion he harboured and desired. Even before Venezuela hit this juggernaut of an economic crisis, political scientists agreed that to maintain and extend the power base, personalism and petroleum hardly help. Venezuela’s past and present are bereft with personalities that took on cult status. Hugo Chavez being the biggest example. The corollary of this is quite simple – good governance and national prosperity neither comes through one person nor from his or her good intentions. Recall the old English proverb? The road to hell is paved with good intentions! For Pakistan – no petroleum, massive personalism! Be it Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, the Bhuttos or former army rulers. Personalism generally leads to another idea that can become usually dangerous for a developing nation; i.e. populism. The rhetoric of Hugo Chavez’s populism could be captured in one sentence, a struggle between the righteous and the corrupt elite.This ensured that hard lines were drawn between legitimate and illegitimate points of view and resulted in the ‘I am right, you are wrong’ mentality amongst the population that polarised society. This is because both sides of the divide took it as a high-stakes struggle with everything to lose! In Pakistan – nothing could be closer to the truth today. Take a wander down your nearest street and you will see the ‘I am right, you are wrong’ mindset in full action. On the political smorgasbord, the lines are also concretely drawn. Earlier, it was PPP and PML(N) against the establishment. Now, it is Imran Khan’s PTI vs. all others! The nation has no option but to become severely polarised! With regards to recent leaders handling criticism, the less said about it the better. It goes without stating that any sort of dissent – even constructive – is thought of as unpatriotic in today’s environment Furthermore, Chavez’s administration was not only besieged by personalism and populism but also by ruling through dictate. Since 2000, and when there was no way through the democratic setup, Venezuela was governed by a set of executive decrees. Moreover, Chavez used to declare his critics and political opponents routinely as enemies of the people and state. In Pakistan – successful legislation is hardly on the cards especially in this vitriolic and polarised environment. Thus, much of the current crop of work is being done through presidential ordinances.With regards to recent leaders handling criticism, the less said about it the better. It goes without stating that any sort of dissent – even constructive – is thought of as unpatriotic in today’s environment. In the same vein, when Chavez returned to power after the coup in 2002,hebranded the opposition as unpatriotic and “trying to sell out Venezuelan interests”. For Pakistan – this is also familiar ground. Recent memory suggests that any government declares the opposition parties to be ‘sell outs’. Remember that during the parliamentary elections of 2018, Nawaz Sharif was linked to Indian businesses and business men. Imran Khan is regularly – but incorrectly – tagged as part of a Jewish conspiracy. While, in the late 80s Benazir Bhutto was deemed a security risk – wrongly so – and said to have sold out to the Indian Government! Since 2002, and because of Chavez treating the opposition as unpatriotic and against the state, politics became a zero-sum game. Media outlets came under pressure and some were suspended. Independent institutions were no longer such as they came to be seen as sources of danger. Labour unions were weakened by blacklists or replaced outright. When courts defied Chavez, he suspended unfriendly judges and crammed the supreme court with loyalists. This exacerbated the already acute polarisation in the country and destroyed any likelihood of compromise. In Pakistan – PML(N) tamed the judiciary to its will by packing the upper judiciary with loyalists and lambasting them, and even physically charging the supreme court building, when decisions didn’t go its way. PEMRA, the electronic watchdog, routinely is accused of taking against media houses that are not aligned with the direction of the government of the day. Recently, Imran Khan reprimanded the judiciary and asked it to “renew people’s faith in the judiciary” eliciting a strong response from the supreme court chief justice! To be continued The writer is a freelance contributor