|
The
Venezuelan Revolution 100 Questions-100 Answers
By
Chesa Boudin, Gabriel Gonzalez, and Wilmer Rumbos
Book Reviewed by
Amin Sharif
Ever since Harry
Belafonte returned from Venezuela declaring President
Bush a terrorist and announcing his support for
President Hugo Chavez, there has been much interest
within the radical community and among people in general
about what is really going on in Venezuela . The
Venezuelan Revolution answers 100 of the most
fundamental questions about the revolution. It is an
excellent, concise, and unvarnished account of how the
Bolivarian Republic—as
it is known among the masses in Venezuela—came
to power and to the lofty social, economic, and
political goals to which it is dedicated. Almost every
question that could be anticipated by the reader about
Venezuela—from
the nature of its constitution, the status of the
indigenous peoples, Venezuela’s conflict with the United
States, why Chavez was briefly overthrown, and what the
future of the revolution maybe—is
addressed in this small book.
But more than
anything else, Boudin, Gonzalez, and Rumbos have exposed
as baseless slander the prevailing idea that the
Venezuelan revolution is a dictatorship set against the
democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people. Indeed
with its revolutionary ideology of “participatory”
rather than “representative” democracy, Venezuela may be
even more democratic than many of the states in the
West, including the United States of America.
Let us begin our
review by examining the Bolivarian Republic and
confronting the most pervasive question about any
revolutionary change that emanates from Latin America or
the Caribbean. Is it communist? The authors of the
Venezuelan Revolution quickly dismiss this notion and
show conclusively that, "Although the Venezuelan
Communist Party (PVC) supports the Chavez government and
was the first party (besides his MRV party) to endorse
his presidential candidacy in 1998, its members do not
currently have any significant positions in the central
government. None of the ministers, members of the
National Assembly, state governors, or any other
high-ranking public officials are communists."
Indeed, the authors of the Venezuelan
Revolution attest that the “Marxist-Leninist party,
Bandera Roja, and the labor party, La Causa Radical,
stand in opposition” to the Chavez government.
What makes this book so valuable is
that each question raised and answered not only sheds
light on an individual aspect of the revolution. But,
all 100 questions and answers form an organic composite
of the revolution. One sees and understands clearly the
strength and weakness inherent in the revolutionary
process undertaken by Chavez and the Venezuelan masses.
But before we proceed any further, it
may be instructive for the reader to have some sense of
the, albeit abbreviated, history of Venezuela, a country
which provides the United States with 12 percent of its
daily oil imports. As the authors inform us, "Beginning
with the Spanish colonization in the1550’s, a series of
dictatorial regimes ruled Venezuela until 1958, when a
power-sharing agreement between the leading political
parties led to the creation of what became essentially a
two party democracy."
Politicians from the Accion
Democratica (AD) and Comite de Organizacion Politica
Electoral Independiente (COPEI) would share power for
the next forty years, even as their policies led the
country into a protracted national crisis.
The protracted national crisis began
in 1980 when oil prices dropped. The result was that
many oil producing countries throughout the world,
including Venezuela, found they were unable to make
payments on their foreign debt. Then, ". . . in 1983, a
massive bank failure combined with widespread
embezzlement and capital flight wiped out the savings of
much of the middle class. In the midst of this
recession, marked by spiraling national debt,
international financial institutions promoted
neo-liberal economic policies that became a central part
of the Venezuelan government program for over a decade."
It was under these neo-liberal
policies administered by both the AD and COPEI that the
standard of living for all but the wealthiest
Venezuelans continued to erode. In February 1989, in the
wake of the imposition of yet another round of
neo-liberal policies, people took to the streets by the
hundred of thousands to protest what became known as the
“Caracazo.” The military was called in, and the
protests were put down in a hail of bullets. Some 5,000
protests followed over the next three years.
By 1997, a staggering 85 percent of
the Venezuelan people were living in poverty and an
astounding “67 percent were living in extreme poverty,
earning less than $2 a day.” Under these stark
conditions, it is no wonder that the “majority gave up
on institutional reform, demanding revolutionary change
instead.” The man who led the Venezuelan masses in
initiating this revolutionary change was Hugo Chavez.
But who is Hugo Chavez? We are given
the following biographic sketch of the controversial
President of Venezuela by our authors. "Hugo Rafael
Chavez Frias was born in 1954 in a rural town called
Sabaneta in Barinas State. Both his mother and father
were schoolteachers . . . Chavez turned seventeen with
the dream of becoming a professional baseball player,
and he enrolled in the military academy hoping it would
launch his career as a big-league pitcher. The baseball
career never worked out, but Chavez did graduate as an
officer in the Venezuelan military."
It was as a military officer that
Chavez witnessed how ruthlessly President Perez put down
the Caracazo demonstrations. Some three years later in
February of 1992, Lieutenant Colonel Chavez led an
unsuccessful military coup which made him a national
hero but also sent him to jail. A second unsuccessful
coup was attempted against Perez in November of 1992.
But it would not be until 1993 that Perez would be
successfully impeached and removed from office. Hugo
Chavez was pardoned one year later and eventually
elected President of Venezuela in 1998 with an amazing
62 percent of the vote.
Chavez is often portrayed in the
Western media as a communist dictator principally
because of his friendship with Fidel Castro. But Chavez
characterized himself as a Christian, a socialist, a
nationalist, and an internationalist. And unlike Castro,
Chavez has run for and won nine electoral contests. Yet
what is even more telling about how Chavez feels about
the democratic process is that, "In August 2004, in the
wake of a massive opposition signature drive and under
international pressure, Chavez submitted himself to a
presidential recall referendum and was ratified by 59
percent of the vote."
Clearly, this is not the kind of
political act one expects from your garden variety Latin
American dictator. In addition to submitting himself to
the democratic will of his people, Chavez has held
referendums on many of his major policies. Even in
constructing a new constitution for his country, we can
see how he sought to avoid political elitism, "The
process of writing the text of the new constitution,
based on the template that President Chavez presented to
the assembly, was not limited to the elected members of
the assembly, but was rather open to public
participation."
Public participation took many forms,
including forums, Internet pages, popular assemblies,
study groups, and public debates. The privately owned
media, universities, political parties, and NGO’s all
brought their suggestions to the attention of the
members of the assembly elected from their regions, who
were then charged with delivering the ideas to the
relevant subcommittee.
The authors of Venezuelan Revolution
do a superb job in fleshing out not only the process of
how the new constitution was drafted but its actually
impact (or lack of impact) on the Venezuelan masses.
Still, a constitution no matter how
well written amounts to very little unless it empowers
the masses to solve their most fundamental problems.
What lies behind the constitution and the Venezuelan
revolution is the notion unique of participatory and
protagonistic democracy. Unlike American representative
democracy which stresses voting for candidates,
participatory and protagonistic democracy, "is a model
that attempts to stimulate and guarantee the people’s
active participation in the process of governing the
country."
Participatory democracy demands that
citizens play a role in developing government policy,
prioritizing budgets so as to benefit the entire
government. It is a form of government that facilitates
monitoring the government’s progress and its level of
corruption and inefficiency, and that call for change
where necessary. It is participatory because people have
a role that goes beyond simply casting ballots; it is
protagonistic because the people play a role in managing
the government.
The case is made in the Venezuelan
Revolution that it is precisely because Chavez has
vested the poor and working masses with the power to
shape governmental policies that he has drawn so much
criticism at home and abroad. In December of 2002,
opposition forces mounted a national strike against
Chavez that lasted nearly 62 days “causing billions of
dollars of damage to the oil wells and refineries.” It
was only when oil workers loyal to Chavez took back the
wells and refineries that the strike was stopped.
Some two years later, Chavez was
briefly ousted from power in a failed coup attempt. But
whether the opposition arises from reactionary domestic
conspirators or the machinations of outside forces such
as the United States, the Venezuelan masses have always
rallied to defend Chavez and their revolution against
any and all enemies.
Still, even with the evident support
of the Venezuelan masses, the Bolivarian Republic faces
some serious roadblocks to its development. Poverty and
corruption, in all its manifest forms, may eventually
evaporate the support of the masses for the revolution
if not addressed quickly.
Our authors have informed us that the
spirit of the Venezuelan revolution is contained in its
drive to make participatory democracy a reality. The
muscle of the Venezuelan revolution to attack its myriad
social ills is embodied in Chavez’s concept of social
missions. What are the missions? They are described by
the authors in the following passage: "The missions are
extraordinary social campaigns through which the
Venezuelan government is attempting to address its
citizens most pressing needs. The government developed
the missions in an attempt to enact participatory
democracy on the ground in order to accomplish campaign
promises in areas such as health, education, food,
housing, and employment."
On its face, the missions sound like
just another socialist program. One would be right in
assessing them as such if it not for the unique form of
the socialism which gives them structure. For, as we are
informed, "The idea of the missions, as the name
implies, derives loosely from Christian theology,
President Chavez is a practicing Christian and invites
government leaders, members of the church, health care
workers, business leaders, and people from around the
country to participate in helping Venezuela’ most
downtrodden in the tradition of Christian
missionaries-following the example of Christ . . .
Chavez views Jesus Christ as the first socialist."
It is this nexus of participatory
democracy, Christian inspired socialism, and unique
governmental organization that makes the Venezuelan
revolution unlike any revolutionary effort that has been
attempted before in history. Yet, even with all its
strength, there are problems that seem to be beyond the
reach of the spirit and muscle of the revolution. Racism
and sexism are admittedly two of the most pressing
social problems that have yet to be solved by the
Venezuelan revolution.
Some eight percent of Venezuela’s
population is of African descent. Yet our authors’
honestly state that this population “has not benefited
as a group” from the fruits of the revolution. When one
contrasts the monumental efforts undertaken by the
government to address the historical inequities suffered
by the indigenous people of Venezuela, the lack of
attention to the problem of racism is indeed troubling.
Venezuelan women constitute 49.6
percent of the population. The women’s movement has,
according to our authors, “been one of the strongest
progressive movements in Venezuelan history.” It is
clear from the information provided to us in the
Venezuelan Revolution that there has been progress
in providing women and their children with much needed
legal and social protection. The Venezuelan Ministry of
Education has even been obliged “to incorporate new
teaching methods from preschool onward, oriented to
modify sociocultural norms of the behavior of boys and
girls.” Undoubtedly, this progressive and far reaching
policy will address the inequities between Venezuelan
men and women in the future.
Yet, "Despite these legal gains, only
18 of 165 National Assembly deputies (11 percent) are
women. Only 2 out of 22 governors are women (9 percent)
and only 20 out of total of 335 mayors are women (6
percent)."
It is clear that if the Venezuelan
revolution is to survive it must seek a way to address
not only the inequities of poverty but also of race and
gender.
One would conclude from all the
information provided by our authors in the Venezuelan
Revolution that the United States would seek to
support a democratically elected and committed Christian
leader such as Chavez. But this is far from the case. In
the Venezuelan Revolution, we are given the
reason why there is so much enmity between the United
States and the Bolivarian Republic. The main reason why
the United States has problems with Chavez is centered
on the question of regional hegemony. That is, who
should play the leading role in developing Latin
America?
Since the advent of the Monroe
Doctrine, the United States has used a series of dubious
pretexts to keep Latin America and Caribbean countries
under its thumb. In regard to Venezuela, our authors
assert that, historically, "Venezuela governments have
put a lot of energy into maintaining a strong
relationship with the United States without paying much
attention to other bilateral relationships . . . The
Chavez government actively seeks to break this historic
dependency."
The principle way in which Chavez has
sought to break with the United States is by pursuing an
entirely independent foreign policy. Not only has Chavez
befriended Castro but he has also hosted President
Khatami of Iran, visited Saddam Hussein in Iraq (before
the war) and Mu’ammar Gadhafi in Libya. Chavez has also
worked to strengthen OPEC which resulted in “driving up
oil prices.” But what is not more generally known is how
much aid Chavez has given to other Third World countries
and even to poor communities within the United States.
More recently Chavez has worked to
oppose the United States Free Trade Zone of America (FTAA).
Like NAFTA which established a free trade zone between
Mexico, Canada, and the United States, FTAA would, “make
all of the Western Hemisphere (thirty-four countries)
with the exception of Cuba, a free trade zone.” In
essence, FTAA would give the entire Southwestern
Hemisphere over to exploitation of multinational
corporations at the expense of the national sovereignty
of individual Latin American countries. It is because
Chavez has followed an independent foreign policy and
acted to thwart the plans to economically integrate all
the Latin America countries under the flag of
multinational corporate interests that he has become the
enemy of the United States.
The principle question for radical
and progressive forces concerning Venezuela is whether
both its domestic and foreign policies constitutes real
revolutionary change in the region? There has been much
written by especially the socialist forces on this
matter. But this is what our author tell us, "The
Bolivarian Revolution began by overhauling the
political-judicial structures that served to maintain
the previous system of the government and the rampant
inequalities that it produced. The revolution is now
focusing on economic and social changes in the interest
of the majority of Venezuelans living in poverty . . .
These changes do not yet fundamentally impact capitalist
development, the rule of law, or private property.
Still, in the context of this country’s recent history,
most, Venezuelans, whether they support them or oppose
them, recognize that the profound changes that are
currently in progress are indeed revolutionary. "
Recently, The International
Socialist Review (Issue 46 March-April 2006)
dedicated its spring issue to the examining the
political developments in Venezuela and Bolivia. The
venerable socialist theorist, Noam Chomsky, in an essay
called, "Latin America at the Tipping point, states
that, "From Venezuela to Argentina, the hemisphere is
getting completely out of control, with left-central
governments all the way through. Even in Central
America, still suffering the aftereffects of President
Reagan’s 'war on terror', the lid is barely on."
Chomsky seems to see Venezuela as at
least as part and parcel of a general progressive tide
that is sweeping Latin America. Chomsky’s view seems to
arise from the role that Chavez has in placing Venezuela
within Mercosur (a South American trading zone) which he
rightly states “represents an alterative to the
so-called Free Trade Area of America.”
In "An Unconscious Socialist
Revolution" (The International Socialist Review
(Issue 46 March-April 2006), Américo
Tabata, Venezuelan member of the national committee of
the Party of Revolution and Socialism (PRS), believes
that "an unconscious socialist revolution . . . is
unfolding" in Venezuela. For example, Tabata admits that
Chavez’s missions are, “democratic achievements wrested
from the bourgeoisie and imperialism by popular
struggle.” But still, he wonders about whether such
democratic achievements will necessarily lead to a
socialist state. Both articles by Chomsky and Tabata
make great companion pieces for The Venezuelan
Revolution and should be read by all those who have
interest in the revolution.
But despite criticism raised
about the revolution, there can be little doubt that
Venezuela is indeed a progressive country and that its
anti-imperialist stand should be enough for it to enjoy
the support of radical and progressive forces everywhere
in the world. Whether Venezuela veers further left,
remains the same, or recaptured by the right it is in
the final analysis a matter to be decided by the poor
and working masses. What Boudin, Gonzalez and Rumbos
reveal in their book is how complex, even fluid, the
revolutionary situation is in Venezuela.
It is not simply the answers given by
our authors to the larger issues such as whether the
achievements of the Bolivarian Republic is revolutionary
that make this book so compelling. The answers to
questions about urban crime, the prison system, the
media, state run corporations, the changing role of the
military and the transformation of political parties,
all enhance our understanding of what the Venezuelan
people are trying to accomplish. The Venezuelan
Revolution 100 Questions-100 Answers is a must read
for anyone who wants to understand the essential thrust
of revolutionary activity in Venezuela and throughout
Latin America. I commend Boudin, Gonzalez, and Rumbos on
compiling a highly effective work and highly recommend
that it be included in the library of all progressive
and radical forces.
*
* * * *
posted 11 April 2006 |
