This past Tuesday, I chit chatted with a few of my
classmates as we waited for our Global Perspectives on Public Diplomacy class
to begin. In the midst of our spirited discussion
about the measly percentage of the U.S. budget allotted to the State Department
(we are students of international studies after all…), one of my classmates
looked at her phone in surprise and informed the rest of us that Venezuelan
President, Hugo Chávez, had died.
While I generally knew about Chávez, his revolutionary
tendencies, and his disdain for the United States, I found myself interested in
his leadership style and in the way such a style affected Venezuela’s public diplomacy. After doing a quick internet search, I came
across a NY Times article on 10 MemorableHugo Chávez Moments. One of the top
moments occurred on Chávez’s weekly television show, Aló Presidente! According to
the article, this show is the only one in the world in which a head of state
regularly invited cameras to follow him as he governed. The show featured Chávez
singing, dancing and interacting with supporters for hours at a time.
During this particular taping of the show, BBC journalist
John Sweeney asked “Why
does Venezuela not spend its money in Venezuela?”
Mr. Chávez responded, “That is a stupid question. I cannot
answer a stupid question because whoever tries to answer a stupid question
would sound stupid.” Mr. Chávez then pointedly
told Mr. Sweeney that only “someone stupid would ask such a stupid question.”
I was incredulous at Chávez’s audacity and his complete
disregard for being politically correct; a practice I see as customary for good
public diplomacy.
Even beyond his obvious outrageousness, Chávez’s weekly
television show was a wider example of how “the nature of the global
communications environment makes it inevitable that (sometimes for better,
sometimes for worse) one-way messages are transmitted on a daily, hourly, and
even minute-to-minute basis.” These are
the words of Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault in their article Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to
Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy (p. 13).
Depending on the context, Cowan and Arsenault argue that
one-way communication is often necessary when “a nation wants the people of the
world to understand where it stands.”
The implication is that one-way communication is one tool in a larger
effort to also engage in dialogue and collaboration with other nations.
The public diplomacy model incorporated by Chávez however,
disregarded these other two layers of public diplomacy, especially when they
pertained to the United States and its allies.
After being called “stupid” on such a public platform, I doubt Mr.
Sweeney left Venezuela with any positive perceptions of Chávez. Surely such treatment does not open a path
for dialogue and collaboration between Venezuela and the UK. Now that Chávez is gone, it will be
interesting to see whether Venezuela maintains or abandons the public diplomacy
culture initiated by Chávez.
Great post, Heather. I came across similar articles following Tuesday's events and it was very interesting to me, someone who really has not studied anything about Latin America, to learn about the role and infamy of Chávez. I read about his TV show Aló Presidente! and was equally as perplexed as you regarding its content. I think it does bring up an interesting point as to the role of public diplomacy in authoritarian-like governments, where the real emphasis is on monologue. I don't think Chávez had any particular desire to appeal to foreign audiences, since he was so well known for his blunt distaste for the U.S. In addition, the notion of a dialectic method of public diplomacy in order to collaborate with foreign nations is, as we discussed in class, not necessarily universal or innate in PD practices. It may be understandable that leaders such as Chávez see little value in moving from monologue to dialogue, despite the existing scholarly work that promotes multidimensional methods of communication when conducting PD. Also, would be really interesting to know what the Venezuelan population felt about Chávez's comments because it seems to me that despite how incredulous we may consider his behavior, he was still loved by so many. Thanks for the great read!
ReplyDeleteI think you both bring up really great points. It certainly is an interesting case to look at Chavez’s communication practices, through his television show and his interview ‘style’. I think it is also interesting in the case to consider the monologue and its effects on the people of Venezuela, as Bianca alludes to. As you mentioned we are seeing a monologue style of communication with foreign publics, but also to the Venezuelan public from an authoritarian leader. From the news reports and coverage of the mourning of Chavez’s death, it is apparent that the people of Venezuela held great respect for him as their leader. Without knowing much about the extent of the relationship between Chavez and the people of Venezuela, this monologue approach seems to have had positive effects within the country. Would this public therefore share in the distaste for the United States for example? Translating this to public diplomacy, would it be more challenging to connect with and building understanding with a population who may not be accustomed to or even prefer dialogue? So the question I am musing over is, is it possible to have a dialogue with a country and foreign public who prefers a monologue? How would a country adapt its public diplomacy approach to connect with this audience?
ReplyDelete