According to Prime Minister Patterson’s post gas riot speech “The old order - the closed, distant and authoritarian sys­tems of governance - is being forced to give way to a structure which is inclusive, responsive, and accountable… We must change our approach to governance, or we will become part of the problem to be swept aside by the emerging new social order.”

Is this evidence that a fundamental re-ordering of the Jamaican state is at hand? Or is it mere political blather to placate the masses? Time will tell. But our leaders would be foolish to think the country’s rage will magically dissipate. A change is gonna come. But will it arrive from above or below?

In developing countries across the globe there is growing anger over the unrealized promises of globalization. The upper elite may have grown richer, but the middle and lower classes are experiencing economic hardship, job anxiety and soaring crime. A resentment fuelled cry for change is being voiced everywhere. Venezuela in particular is on the verge of political revolution.

Venezuela has enjoyed uninterrupted civilian rule since 1958, and like Jamaica has, or used to have, an entrenched two-party system. Venezuela though has experienced far more serious political unrest. In 1989 austerity measures, including a bus fare increase, provoked massive rioting. Hundreds of people were killed by government troops. But, as in Jamaica, the system endured

In 1992 Colonel Hugo Chavez’s regiment surrounded parliament, and only other loyal troops prevented a military takeover. Chavez was jailed for two years, but returned in December 1998 to win a landslide victory in presidential elections, easily beating the candidates of the two traditional parties. He immediately asked the congress for special powers to deal with the country’s problems, threatening to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree if they were not granted. When the Supreme Court rebuked him for exceeding his authority, he threatened to dissolve it too. Congress eventually granted Chavez fast-track authority on economic matters. But he made it clear that he would settle for nothing less than a complete overhaul of the state and called a referendum on constitutional reform.

Chavez ran an intimidatory campaign, and the electoral commission had to stop his press office from running official “yes vote” advertisements. His followers even blocked the entrance to the capitol building for two days, insulting lawmakers and preventing them from entering or leaving the building.

The referendum phrasing was heavily biased. The first of two questions asked “Do you want to transform the state and create a new juridical order that permits the effective functioning of a social and participatory democracy?” 92% of voters said yes, but voter turnout was only 39%.

Chavez’s calls to sweep away an inefficient state apparatus have struck a deep chord among the poor, who see him as a saviour from the corrupt ruling elite. They also like his promises to halt moves toward privatization and a more open economy while defending state sector jobs and boosting health and education expenditures.

Chavez’s tirades attack all of Venezuela’s last 40 years, even though the standard of living has risen, malaria has been eradicated, and literacy and life expectancy have improved. In place of the parties - which for all their flaws respected democratic institutions - he seems inclined to govern on the basis of a mystical bond with the people. He sees no need for political institutions to interpret the popular will, preferring direct consultation with voters. But can democracy survive solely by referendum?

Some see in Chavez the spirit of Juan Peron, the 1950s populist dictator who beggared Argentina. Of course he might emulate the present Argentine president Carlos Menem, who ran as a Peronist but has governed as a textbook market enthusiast. Or he may be another Alberto Fujimori, who made good on threats to bypass the traditional political system and has governed Peru effectively.

The future is known only to God, but the past suggests that nations which put their trust in personalities rather than the elected process generally regret it greatly. Some argue dubiously that authoritarian leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, Pinochet and Houphouët-Boigny delivered ‘stability’ and economic growth. Yet But even right wingers must admit that so-called 'good strong guys' have always been in short supply, but never unmitigatedly disastrous tyrants. Stalin, Castro, Marcos, Amin, the Shah – the list of autocrats who impoverished their countries is endless. One of history’s few unequivocal lessons is that power corrupts. Yet elected dictators, like Hitler, are always the fault of greedy and weak democratic elites.

Chavez’s triumph is an extraordinary lesson to democratic leaders everywhere. It has demonstrated that you cannot indefinitely run a political system with an explicit or even implicit pact to divide up the spoils and rule the country on the basis of patronage. The Venezuelan electorate, clearly voting in rage, preferred even a potential despot to a traditional party system offering only entrenched corruption and partisan nepotism. But of course revolts of the masses do not always seek expression at the ballot box.

Jamaica has no history of strongman rule, and the danger of Chavezism might seem remote here. Yet when police arrested Zeeks his thousands of supporters immobilized downtown Kingston. Only a police sanctioned appeal from the don himself restored order. But exposing a criminal suspect to a large crowd contravenes the principle of due process. So Zeeks’ appearance effectively destroyed the police’s own case, demonstrating that such men are now above even the law. Our unscrupulous politicians have created a hydra-headed Frankenstein’s monster, and are now riding tigers they cannot control but fear to dismount.

Most garrison communities were noticeably quiet during the gas riots, confirming the dons’ strength. What would have happened if this force had been channeled in the opposite direction? The Matches Lane don and the Tivoli don, formerly bitter political rivals, are already reported to have made common cause. Last Tuesday in Hannah Town police carrying out an arrest were surrounded by erstwhile rival gangs linking in a military style operation that resulted in Corporal Fitzroy Barrett being killed. What is to prevent all garrisons, if left unchecked, from eventually uniting behind a charismatic and ambitious Super don?

They say fools never learn from mistakes, ordinary men learn from their own mistakes, and wise men learn from the mistakes of others. Which are our leaders?