Venezuelan Referendum pt II

In applying the dialectical method as a means of examining the Bolivarian Revolution one is struck by the self contradictory nature of Chavez and his program.  The essence of Bolivarian policies are aimed in two directions; alleviating the social, economic, and political inequalities that exist in Venezuela and the move to a participatory democracy that is based on popular participation amongst citizens at all levels of governance.  One contradiction of the Bolivarian process that arises is the need for a strong centralized authority to implement reforms and policies that move in the direction of egalitarianism and popular participation.  This is popular empowerment from above (centralized authority) as opposed from below (mass social movements).  The contradiction lies within the need for power to be concentrated in a vertical hierarchy in order to end up with a horizontal distribution of governmental and political power.

 

Within this contradiction lies another, namely in the individual of Chavez himself.  The movement that Chavez has led in office these past ten years, what he has called the Bolivarian Process, has undeniably gained and held a popular mandate.  But the movement itself is heavily dependent on Chavez, as no other major leaders have emerged.   Without other independent centers of leadership and vision the Bolivarian project is in danger on becoming overly dependent on Chavez.  A program with the stated goals of egalitarianism and participatory democracy clearly needs to free itself of being of any one sole leader, however inspiring or intelligent he or she may be.  As has all too often been the case in the past when individuals assert their special and unique importance as leader of the ‘revolution,’ the regime holds power develops authoritarian tendencies.  Often this is accompanied by leader worship or the cult of the personality.  The case of Fidel and the Cuban Revolution, whatever one’s opinion on the matter, is a case in point.

 

These internal contradictions bring up us back to the original questions at hand in this essay, the implications of end of term limits in Venezuela.  It now becomes apparent that term limits are viewed by both supporters and opposition as a mechanism for disrupting the progression of the Bolivarian Revolution.  Importantly, both sides view the disruptive potential as centered around the contradiction inherent in Chavez currently indispensable leadership.  While the supporters of the referendum understand that this will allow Chavez to continue at the helm of the Venezuelan state and hence allow the Bolivarian process to expand and deepen, there is far too little emphasis on the potential negatives.  While the referendum affects all levels of government it is ostensibly focused on the office of the president.  With the constitutional possibility of seeking a third term in office, Chavez is ensuring the continuation of the process while at the same time undermining it by placing constraints on the emergence of new leaders and divergent opinions.  This dialectical opposition is at the heart of the referendum.

 

In the end I support the passing of the referendum and the movement towards twenty first century socialism in Venezuela.  But in supporting the Bolivarian process we must always be aware of the potential dangers that lay within it.  One simply has to look at the history of rulers throughout the ages to see that those who have power concentrated in their hands have a hard time freely giving it up, especially when this means empowering the masses.  Although the empowerment of the Venezuelan masses traditionally excluded from any such position is a major cornerstone of the Bolivarian process, the placing of a single person at the pinnacle of power for multi-decade period will engender its share of risks.  It is our task as supporters of the Bolivarian process to constantly provide a constructive critique of Chavez and his program with the interests of the people of Venezuela and the world in mind.

Reflections on the Venezuelan Referendum Pt. 1

The people of Venezuela voted yesterday in a national referendum to abolish term limits on all elected governmental offices.  First, a quick breakdown of the numbers and how the day passed.  According to Venezuela's National Electoral Council about 70% of the 16 million eligible voters took part in the vote.  The final vote in favor was about 55% to 45% against.  In contrast to a national referendum that took place in 2007 which included 69 other constitutional changes, yesterdays vote was limited to the sole issue of term limits.  International observers, as well as the opposition, have declared the vote legitimate and transparent, with the Paraguayan representative asking that Venezuela help provide technical support in installing a similar system in Paraguay.  The transparency is based on a dual system of electronic voting along side a paper vote to ensure a material record of the vote making it virtually impossible to tamper with the ballots.  On top of the dual vote is open overseeing of the vote counting by both supporters of government policy as well as members of the opposition.  In other words, the Venezuelan people have clearly spoken their minds on the issue of term limits and a clear majority are in favor of the abolition.  The real question is what implications arise from this referendum and what interests stand to gain from it.

The abolition of term limits for elected officials is in itself not inherently undemocratic.  If fact the argument for the opposite, that term limits are in their nature undemocratic, can be more easily made.  One only has to look to the many parliamentary democracies of the North to see multiple examples of this in action.  Leaving aside the various criticisms of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in the mainstream media around the world as having authoritative and dictatorial tendencies, the changing of the constitution to allow Chavez to run for a third term of office in 2013 and Venezuela's unique historical development certainly brings up concerns worth thinking about.  

The development of socialism through democratic means was attempted in various counties in the world to some degree throughout the twentieth century.  The case of Venezuela is really no different except for the epoch in which it is taking place, the twenty first century.  After the collapse of the USSR and world Communism, the triumph of liberal democratic capitalism was proclaimed by the imperial apologist and liberal theorists as the "end of history."  There were suppose to be no alternatives to the cure-all prescription of neoliberal economic policies, at least to those proponents of TINA and a unipolar world.  Out of this imperialist worldview came the revolt of the dispossessed peoples of the South.  In the past, social democratic states were established in Europe following the mass immiseration of the general population that was the result of WWII.  The basic reforms that were undertaken in Europe in the 1940's and 50's are, in substance, very similar to the direction that Venezuela is heading today, although they differ in form.  Private capital is being left in place by the state and it is still flourishing in 'socialist' Venezuela.  It is perhaps the form of Venezuela's path towards a social democratic state that makes the question of term limits a divisive issue not only in the country but also in the world.  This of course is due to divided opinion about the leadership of Hugo Chavez. 

Adjectives such a flamboyant, charismatic, polemical, outspoken may all justifiably be applied to Chavez in one way or another.  Certainly his opponents, and there are many of them in Venezuela and abroad, do not approve of his policies or his actions. They loath to see their final chance to rid themselves of him as president at the end of his current term in 2012 be wiped away by a popularly backed and transparent vote.  The prospect of Chavez's reelection and the continuation of the Bolivarian Revolution is at this time very likely and it is understandable that the opposition raise all manner of objections to it, some valid some not.  These are to be expected and deserved to be examined, but I believe the real examination needs to come not from the opposition but from the supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution.  

Empowering the People

I recently spent a weekend helping out the people of Santa Fe, a city about a 7-hour bus ride to the northwest of Buenos Aires. Recent torrential rains have caused widespread flooding across much of the area and the city of Santa Fe was one of the hardest hit areas. When I saw the pictures of homes almost completely submerged in the newspapers I knew I had to do something to help. I asked my buddy Fede, a local student at the University of Buenos Aires and activist, if there was anything I could do. Two short days later I found myself on an overnight bus to Santa Fe with a group of UBA students.
The city of Santa Fe proper is pretty sizable with a population a little of 500,000. Although the whole city was affected by the flooding it was particularly bad on the outskirts of town in the barrios where most people live in an impoverished condition. It was to these barrios that we were heading. Our goal for the trip, or at least what I understood to be our goal, was to distribute clothing, food, medicine, shoes, mattresses and other sorely needed materials to the local impoverished peoples. Students or other residents of Bs As donated everything we brought. We ended up having so much that we couldn’t fit it all in the holds below the bus and were forced to fill up the vacant seats and isle.
As we pulled into Santa Fe in the early hours of Saturday morning I was excited to get to work distributing the aid goods. Little did I realize that our trip had a much larger purpose that simply handing out goods. We filed off the bus and into a small building that turned out to be the local MST (Socialist Workers Movement) party HQ. The MST had cosponsored the trip from Bs As and it was only now that the real meaning of the trip was becoming apparent.
We had an hour-long briefing before heading to the barrios. I listened patiently, not really understanding much of what was being said, but luckily I had Fede close by to translate for me (I was the only foreigner there, probably the only foreigner in all of Santa Fe at that point). Basically Fede broke it down like this: we are here to organize the people so that the can stand together with one voice and demand from the government what is owed to them. I also found out at this time that a similar but even worse flood had happened four years ago. All the promises by the provincial and federal government to provide measures to prevent another flood, like dikes, pumps, drainage systems, had all come to nothing. And now the people were being left to rot once again.
The rest of the day was spent in the barrios going door-to-door handing out flyers for a popular assembly meeting to be held later on that day. I say door to door, but the truth of the matter is that many of the places we went to had no doors, windows or much else. Forget about doorbells, without doors you can’t even knock. I quickly learned that clap of the hands was the accepted way to inquire if someone was inside. Most people took the flyers but were a bit puzzled about why we were there and what we were doing. Although we explained our intentions to give the people themselves a voice you could see that these people had been burned many times in the past and were skeptical about any improvements happening. It was a disheartening to see this, but it was very inspiring when we talked to someone and a passion was ignited within them.
At 5:30 the assembly met in front of the local grade school in the only place available in the barrio, the middle of a dirt street. About 40 people showed up, mostly women, but also some older men and youths. Clearly a chord had been struck as all these people came to see what was going to take place, but there was a deep sense of skepticism as well. The assembly opened with a MST leader explaining the situation about the flooding and the absolute lack of government action. He explained that the people deserved much better and it was indeed possible if they stared to act together on a community level so that their voice would be heard.
A fierce debate ensued between those who agreed that it was time to come together and those who felt that it was a waste of time because the government would never help them out. At first the latter of the two groups held the edge in the argument. On man in particular was really pessimistic about any influence the people could have on the government. By the end of the assembly the mood had drastically changed thanks to a few passionate voices, including a few from the UBA students. The man that was so pessimistic at the beginning offered to put his small kiosk at disposal of the community as information and distribution center. It was as stunning and inspiring turn around.
The assembly decided to meet the following week and the hope was that the number of people attending would increase. The issue we came to raise was that of flood protection, but with the people given a chance to talk of their problems other concerns arouse such of lack of any public transport in the barrios. Already the people were developing a common and popular consensus on social needs. It was a great sight to see these people who earlier in the day had seemed so down and condemned to poverty leave the assembly with a glimmer of hope for change in the future.
After distributing the clothing and other aid we all headed back to the MST HQ to talk about the positive and negative experiences of the day, ways we could improve in the future, and how we could apply the lessons of social organization back in Bs As and beyond. All the students got back on the bus for our ride back to Bs As a short 24 hours after originally departing. It was a productive day though, one that has given me a new outlook on the power of social and popular assemblies and the power that it gives to those who otherwise have very little. All of the intellectual and theoretical efforts that go into socialist thought are very important to the cause, but it is only through direct action that reality is shaped. That is perhaps the most important lesson I learned in Santa Fe.