Shannon K. O'Neil

Latin America's Moment

O'Neil analyzes developments in Latin America and U.S. relations in the region.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Guest Post: Correa is No Chávez

by Guest Blogger for Shannon K. O'Neil
July 31, 2012

Ecuador's President Correa and Venezuela's President Chavez sing national anthem during a ceremony in Caracas Ecuador's President Correa and Venezuela's President Chavez sing national anthem during a ceremony in Caracas (Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Courtesy Reuters).


This is a guest post by Stephanie Leutert, a research associate here at the Council on Foreign Relations who works with me in the Latin America program.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has been in full campaign mode: speaking, singing, and exhorting the dangers of his opponent, Henrique Capríles Radonski. Despite his visible public activities, rumors and speculation continue to swirl, with attention focused on his health far more than on his policies. The prospect of a Venezuela without Chávez, and more broadly the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, or ALBA, and its regional initiatives, has led many to speculate who would or could fill the void. In the regional arena, Ecuador’s mercurial president Rafael Correa stands as a top contender.

The two leaders’ apparent bonhomie and similar policies have led some to joke that Correa seems to be already auditioning for the job. The left-leaning presidents share a common rhetoric (frequently labeling opponents as oligarchs or imperialists), charismatic personalities, a disdain for (and often exaggeration of) U.S. influence in the region, and a taste for forging relationships with some of the world’s most notorious pariah states (Iran and Belarus). In doing so, they have also whipped up domestic approval ratings (at 57 percent, Correa enjoys one of the highest in the hemisphere) and continuously survived elections (aided by uneven electoral playing fields).

Part of their popularity stems from increases in social spending for the poor and marginalized groups. High global commodity prices and significant oil reserves have bankrolled ambitious social programs in both countries. Combined with strong domestic economic growth, these programs have changed the lives of their recipients. Ecuador has more than halved its extreme poverty in the past decade and pulled its national poverty levels from a half to a third the population, while GDP per capita has more than doubled. Venezuela has also seen its poverty headcount drop and GDP per capita rise from $5,000 to over $10,000 in the past ten years.

Both leaders too have consolidated power in the presidency. Both Chávez and Correa have done little to strengthen (and at times actively weakened) already flimsy systems of checks and balances. And recent crackdowns on private media have garnered global attention and condemnation, as well as stories of executive influence on the judiciary. To be fair, Chávez and Correa inherited flawed democracies and arrived in office facing deeply entrenched interest groups. But the two leaders’ policies have nonetheless been geared more toward shifting power to their advantage rather than strengthening democratic institutions.

Despite their similarities, Correa can’t hope to fill Chávez’s regional shoes. The most obvious reason is simply that Ecuador is not Venezuela. With double the population, triple the landmass, and five times more annual oil production, Venezuela has been able to back up its initiatives with significant funds. While Correa’s rhetoric is as feisty, his bank account is much less, limiting his ability to guide South America’s affairs.

Washington too will deny Correa a starring role on the hemispheric stage. Having learned that provocative responses to Chávez’s taunts just strengthened his hand, U.S. officials are unlikely to do so again. Instead, a cautious approach and benign neglect will make it difficult, if not impossible, for Correa to gain Chávez-style notoriety. Without the resources or the ideological juxtaposition, it is unlikely that any one person could fill the leadership void. Organizations such as the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) or the Market of the South (Mercosur) may be able to step in and take on some of the initiatives, but—despite Correa’s best efforts—there won’t be another Chávez.

Post a Comment 5 Comments

  • Posted by Patrick

    Good article, if a bit obvious in its conclusions. Venezuela also has an incredibly high inflation rate and deficits of basic foodstuffs, in addition to rampant urban violence. Both these guys would be better off if they followed the counter-cyclical government spending programs pursued by Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, among others. The second Correa’s or Chávez’s successor cuts back on aid to the poor, those families will be back where they started.

  • Posted by Raja M. Ali Saleem

    The main difference between President Chavez and President Correa is that for Correa worldwide socialist revolution is more of an afterthought than the main aim. Correa is more interested in his own country than fighting ‘imperialists’ internationally, which seems to be Chavez’s agenda. So not only Correa is no Chavez, he has no intention of becoming Chavez.

    United States and the West should give importance to this crucial difference between the two regimes/leaders, despite the similarity of rhetoric.

  • Posted by Ronald Burnett

    A good article but one important point is missed . Chavez is military and , in that part of the World , they are not of a high educational level . However Correa is very well educated and graduated from a US University . Which might make him more dangerous !

  • Posted by Sanla

    “However Correa is very well educated and graduated from a US University . Which might make him more dangerous ! ”
    Dangerous for… the USA? You need to cut the paranoia!!!

  • Posted by Fernando Justicia

    Writing in April 2013 … after Chavez has gone permanently, it is possible to say that a general aim will now be more evident without Chavez’ antics and excesses (with a chequebook that seemed larger than it really was): to unify Latin America by taking away previously ubiquitous influence of the United States – possible evidence of this is the fact that UNASUR backed Chavez’s successor in such a flawed election.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required