But why should an event that happened seven years ago continue to be so important today? As Nelson explained to me in an extensive interview via email (the full transcript of which is posted here on my blog), how we understand the 2002 coup is seen as the ultimate proof or disproof of the regime's credibility.
"If you believe that the opposition initiated the violence; that they placed gunmen at the head of the march and wanted to cause deaths to spark a coup, then Hugo Chávez is a victim," wrote Nelson in his email to me. "But if you believe that the Chávez government initiated the violence; that the National Guard troops and loyalists opened fire on the march to keep it from surrounding the palace, then Hugo Chávez is not the victim, he is the aggressor. (...) If this is what you believe, then Hugo Chávez has lost his legitimacy and he should, at the very least, be placed on trial."
Nelson's status as an outsider is exceptionally important in telling this story, as is his willingness to give voice to both sides (very few journalists in Venezuela are able to avoid being polarized into one camp or the other, putting a sharp end to any diverse sources). As he explains in his prologue, he arrived in Venezuela to begin work on this book as a devout Chavista in 2002. His conclusions, however, led to some significant disagreements with the government's portrayal of the events.
His research did not show an equal level of violence among the opposition and chavista marchers, finding that most of the gunshot victims arriving to the hospital first came from the opposition. The chaos on April 11th literally came down to the hours, beginning at 2:30PM with the pro-Chávez gunmen shooting southward at unarmed opposition marchers, followed by the Metropolitan Police moving up the street to form a barrier between the two marches, with the gunfight culminating around 4:30PM as the police returned fire on the pro-Chávez gunmen.
One of the main conclusions of The Silence and the Scorpion contradicts the government's long standing claim that it was the victim of a well planned conspiracy fomented and encouraged by U.S. backing: "...The evidence suggests that it was a complex and confusing event that was influenced by dozens of self-serving actors. This was not a coup in the classic sense."
Continue reading the full book review here on The Huffington Post, and the interview transcript here. More blogging and books reviews coming later this week.
Thank you for the review. Just in case, for those who don't know, the author of the book, Brian Nelson, is not a right-winger/conservative as some Chavez supporters paint him in order to discredit his book.
Thank you for that, Kolya - I am afraid that Nelson's book, although published by Nation Books (i.e. within the Vanden Heuvel/Stephen Cohen range of opinion), is coming under a well funded attack campaign from academics/pundits known to be very close to the state.
For those curious, I refer you to the final question in the interview transcript in which Nelson explains, with great care, how his personal transformation occurred, and what it means:
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/venezuela/2009/08/coup_vs_vacuum_of_power_interview_with_brian_nelson_on_11-a.htm
This is a major reoccuring problem in discussing Chavez. If you criticize him, it means you are an elitist oligarch who wants to put the country back to Punto Fijo. If you criticize the media or parts of the opposition, you are the enabler of a dictator.
Putin enjoys a similarly generous polarization from the Western left (if you criticize him, it means you are a right wing nutjob, and certainly there are some) ... though as pointed out over at SRB, Putin's closest political comparison would GWB.
Painting somebody you disagree with as a discredited extremist with an agenda is just a lazy way to escape an argument.