|
Some Thoughts on The Bolivarian Revolution
by Ron Smith
A supporter holding a portrait of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Venezuela is a country in the throes of revolution. There are no armed clashes between the military and guerrillas, it is more subtle than the Hollywood portrayals of revolution. Instead, it is a slow, determined process of social change, with the clear goal of completely deconstructing the existing structures of wealth and power. This revolution happens on a daily basis, but the casual observer will just see business as usual. The fact that business occurs at a similar pace as before revolution is a testament to the strengths of Bolivarian revolution and its leader, President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frias, more than anything else.
The Venezuelan revolution presents a curious although not unprecedented phenomenon, that of a charismatic leader making change to benefit the majority of the population, but not a product of grassroots organizing. At the same time, President Chávez enjoys immense popularity among the clase popular, the poor majority of Venezuela. This popularity can be attributed to the changes in the day-to-day lives of poor Venezuelans. Venezuela is a country of striking contrasts. Caracas is a city of glass and steel skyscrapers and open-air markets clogging the streets. Venezuela as a whole is a country of immense oil wealth, and yet a sizable portion of the population still lives in cardboard shantytowns, perched precariously on the mountainsides around the city center. It is a country of Miss Universes and Ali Primera, the famous folksinger who represented the poor with songs like Casas de Cartón, songs about those same shantytowns.
I first came to Venezuela in 2002, months after the infamous twoday coup of the wealthy against President Chávez. The country was still seething in anger against the coup-plotters who remained free, and in control of some of the largest economic engines of the Venezuelan economy. At that time, a war was being waged in Venezuelan media. From the time that I entered my hotel room and turned on the TV after a long trip from California, I saw news announcers claiming that free speech was dead in Venezuela, and that Chávez had installed a dictatorship in Venezuela, followed by advertisements made by the same station exhorting all Venezuelans to come to a march to overthrow the president. President Chávez fought back, not by closing the corporate TV networks, as those same networks claimed to fear, but by creating major material support for independent and state media outlets. By the time I returned in 2004 for the recall referendum to remove Chávez, as an independent media producer I was given incredibly warm treatment, both by the administration, and by people living in the barrios. I was given full access to presidential press conferences and photo ops, and I was welcomed in the poorest barrios of the city, including the infamous 23 de enero barrio.
2002 was the year that George W. Bush claimed that Chávez had no legitimacy as president, because “winning elections do not indicate a popular mandate.” The irony is almost inconceivable, or as the Venezuelans said, sin verguenza, as at the time, Hugo Chávez had won six major national elections since 1998, and George Bush had not even won a single national popular vote. In 2004, based on the constitution written and approved in 2000 and supported by President Chavez, the opposition collected signatures to require a recall, much like the one approved by California voters against Governor Gray Davis. In reality, the opposition fell far short of the required number of signatures, but fearing reprisal from outside observers, the administration agreed to a recall anyway, with the knowledge that, based on poll numbers, a defeat of the referendum was almost guaranteed. I witnessed the defeat of the referendum, where even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, no friend of the Chavez administration, certified the elections results, and the opposition commenced to tear itself to shreds.
Much of the criticism of President Chávez is based on his military past. As described very clearly in Richard Gott’s book, In the Shadow of the Liberator, Hugo Chávez came from a poor family of mixed heritage. The wealthy often call him a half-breed in derision, noting that he did not come from one of the ruling families. Chávez joined the Venezuelan military and served during a particularly unstable period in Venezuelan history. In 1989, the poor of Caracas rose up in rebellion against the mandated reforms of the IMF, and the army was called out to put down the rebellion by force. Chávez was not present during the violence, but it made him reconsider his role in the armed forces. In 1992, he staged a coup d’etat against the president, Carlos Andres Perez. The coup ended in defeat, and with Chávez in prison. Rather than fade from public view in disgrace, Chavez apologized to the Venezuelan people, not for attempting the coup, but for failing, and promised that the coup had ended por ahora, for now.
The truth is that Venezuela is a democracy, one where the people consistently speak in support of the reforms and changes proposed by President Chávez, but a healthy democracy needs a true opposition. Since the traditional powerful interests of the country control the opposition in Venezuela, they lack any credibility. They have been torn apart by scandal and intrigue, and their alternative is a return to the crony capitalism of Venezuela before the reforms. What is missing is organized pressure from the oppressed classes themselves, both keeping the revolution true to its ideals and demanding additional reforms that will benefit even more Venezuelans.
A major change that I experienced between 2002 and 2004 was the ownership of the state oil company, PDVSA. In 2002, PDVSA was a state oil company, but the board of directors represented the wealthy classes of Venezuela, including members that served Shell Oil. Chavez demanded a restructuring of the oil company and proposed a new board of directors more open to the changes made necessary by the revolution. In response, the wealthy closed businesses all over the country and locked workers out of the oil facilities. The lockout failed, and by the time I returned in 2004, the massive secured building for the Oil Ministry in Caracas had been opened to the public, and half the rooms made into classrooms for the free high-school education programs. Riding in a ‘70’s LandCruiser taxi popular in the mountainous barrios, I spoke with two college students that were studying for free, thanks to the revolutionary reforms. They said, very clearly, “Bush wants to take away our oil, just like he did in Iraq. But we won’t let him. The oil belongs to us, and he can pay for it if he wants it just like anyone else.” This signified a major change to me, and on the night after election results were announced, hundreds of Venezuelans had gathered at the entrance to the oil Ministry, with sound systems blasting music, and dancing in jubilation. Certainly now that Chávez has taken oil profits to pay for health care, education, housing, and food, Venezuelans now see oil as a national resource.
Hugo Chavez
Chavez has misstepped a few times recently, I refer especially to an agreement between Venezuela and the right-wing government of Colombia to create a connection for Venezuela’s oil to the Colombian pipeline system. While the intention was honorable, with Chavez seeking to wean himself from his dependency on the U.S. as his largest customer for oil, political realities in Colombia make such a plan impossible, and the “deal with the devil” fell through when Colombian security forces kidnapped a Colombian citizen in Venezuela against the wishes of Chavez, and in conjunction with rebellious members of the military. Perhaps related to this is the fact that no participant in the coup against Chavez has served any time in prison.
Chavez often taunts the opposition by saying Hasta el 2021, referring to the maximum time he can remain president if he continues to win presidential elections. It is a concern, that even in the light of the best intentions of the administration, Chavez remains a lone figure in control of a massive revolution, and while he has massive popular support, there are no organizations that could replace Chavez in the event of assassination or other form of “regime change” that the U.S. seems so wedded to in its foreign policy. Readers will recall that Pat Robertson called precisely for the assassination of President Chávez last year, and the Bush administration condemned Robertson not for the idea of assassination, but for talking about it in such a public forum.
Much has occurred in Venezuela since the 2004 referendum, and although progress is being made, there is some frustration that changes are not happening more rapidly. The constitution requires large land holdings of 5,000 hectares or more that are fallow to be distributed to the poor, and these redistributions are not occurring very quickly. Tensions between South American governments run fairly high right now, as Inacio de Silva Lula, the president of Brazil, has disappointed many by taking a more traditional position on some of the most important regional issues. Brazil also leads the occupying force in Haiti, guilty of major human rights violations against those suspected of support ing ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Presidents in Ecuador and Bolivia [this article written before the election of Evo Morales] have also been disappointing, but they are beginning to realize their need for Chávez, if for nothing else than reliable, cheap oil. It is the popular movements all over the continent that look to Chávez as a powerful ally.
Most recently, Chávez appeared both inside the Summit of the Americas in Argentina, and in the streets at a stadium addressing protesters of the Summit. In Mar del Plata, President Chávez called for the burial of the FTAA, and claimed that the majority of Latin America had already buried it, and most significantly called for the next step, the burial of capitalism in Latin America. Chavez has never claimed that he was Socialist or Communist, but makes no secret of his ties to Cuba. Indeed, it is the miracle of Cuba’s health system that supports the new free health care system being formed in Venezuela under the revolution. Cuban doctors staff free clinics and community homes open 24 hours a day in the barrios, and Venezuelan students travel to Cuba for free medical education.
Chavez’s condemnation of capitalism resonates deeply among the poor and oppressed of Latin America, suffering from the result of “free trade” and neoliberal reforms that deliver the riches of the nations to corporations based in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. Where the president of Venezuela will go from here is unknown, but based on my travels to other parts of Latin America, there can be no doubt that with all his failings, Chavez represents a beacon of hope to the majority long ignored by free trade agreements and reforms.
Ron Smith has done filmmaking in the US and Latin America, and has produced the short Counter Recruitment film, “An Army of None”.
|