Although Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez has provided his constituents with numerous advantages through his socialist policies, his totalitarian repression of speech undermines the good he has accomplished, speakers said.

Venezuelan journalist Boris Muñoz and professor Leonardo Vivas discussed Chávez’ legacy in a lecture and panel discussion titled “Understanding Chávez” Tuesday evening at Harvard University’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs before about 25 attendees.

Despite the benefits Chávez’ social projects have brought the Venezuelan people, Vivas, a fellow at Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a devoted advocate for Venezuelan democracy, said the country’s sky-high crime and inflation rates are proof that his policies aren’t quite as advantageous as he claims.

Vivas said primary health care covers three to four million people, and 40 to 50 percent of the population receives highly subsidized food distributions, and yet Venezuela has the highest crime and inflation rates in Latin America.

“The number one worry in Venezuela is the crime rate,” Vivas said.

From 1997 to 2007, Venezuela’s crime rate steadily increased to the point where it surpassed that of Colombia, a nation normally notorious for its own crime rate, he said.

Muñoz, the editor-in-chief of Exceso Magazine and a Nieman Foundation for Journalism fellow, addressed the lack of transparency in Chávez’ government and focused on the war he has waged against private media.

“There is no transparency. The Venezuelan government is like a submarine, and its black box isn’t even in Venezuela. It’s in Cuba,” Muñoz said, referring to Chávez’ friendship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Though government-media friction predates the president, Muñoz said Chávez especially sought to crush private media for the threat it posed as “an enemy of the revolution.” Thus, to fight his foe, he nationalized as much of the media as he could.

“Now the national government can count on two television stations, 400 radio stations and over 100 local newspapers, all highly ideological,” Muñoz said.

And Chávez’ control over the media extends beyond mere ownership, Muñoz said.

“He can interrupt any TV or radio program at any time he wants, and he frequently does so, sometimes up to three times a day,” Muñoz said. “In the last 10 years, he’s spent over four months of uninterrupted TV transmission.”

Muñoz further condemned the government’s iron grip on journalism by providing a legal contrast.

“According to penal codes, anyone who insults the president can be jailed for nine years. In comparison, sex offenders receive up to six years,” he said. “Legal code seeks to shield the government from public accountability and transparency.”

Muñoz added that the closure of Radio Caracas Television, Venezuela’s most popular channel, is proof Chávez’ stronghold on the media and the country.

“Whether Chávez is a fascist, a dictator or a well-meaning populist, it doesn’t matter,” he said. “The issue is the restriction of free speech &- the fact is that there is a pressure on society to dismiss journalistic inquiry.”

Nieman curator Bob Giles said he particularly appreciated Muñoz’ contribution to the presentation.

“I’m an associate of Boris’, and I believe he’s a smart and thoughtful journalist,” he said. “It’s very difficult for a journalist to operate in a totalitarian government.

“The newspapers are really constrained by the government, and publishers know they’ll get in trouble at the slightest sign of dissent. So what Boris does is remarkable,” Giles said.

Boston resident Joseph Spada said he thought Chávez’ actions were forgivable because they were less corrupt than his predecessor’s; however, he lamented the increase in corruption he has noticed taking place across the globe.

“I wish politics could go back to integrity and responsibility,” he said.”They’re becoming more and more corrupt.”