Why this short-term defeat could help consolidate the gains of the Bolivarian Revolution
Hugo Chavez’s supporters in Venezeula, mostly the poor who had been forced to the fringes of society for generations in the oil rich country, and his allies in the United States may be discouraged after the narrow defeat of Chavez’s constitutional reform referendum. His tightly contested referendum was defeated by under a percentage point and Chavez’s opponents, who include wealthy elites, neo-fascists and their power brokers in the United States, are rejoicing. But for Chavez supporters there is little reason to despair, in fact, there may even be reason to be happy about Chavez’s defeat.
Let’s consider the ramifications of a narrow victory, if for instance, Chavez had triumphed 51 percent to 49 percent. Chavez himself said, “To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them… You won it. I wouldn’t have wanted that Pyrrhic victory.” A closely fought victory for Chavez might have plunged Venezuela into civil disorder at home, risking discontent from the military. Instead, Chavez can now use the tools currently available to him, including the constitution he himself had approved at the turn of this century to begin to address some of Venezuela’s current problems; its systemic corruption, crime, inflation rates, and income disparity. Furthermore by graciously accepting defeat, despite the narrowness of that defeat, and not demanding a recount, Chavez is casting himself to the rest of the world and to his own people as a true democrat: A man who believes not only in socialism and economic justice, but also in democracy and political freedoms. This graciousness of Chavez following his defeat will do well to defect unwarranted charges of despotism from wealthy Capitalists in Washington and Miami and the former oligarchs of his own country.
Chavez is still defiant however and will not let this defeat stop him. “We’re continuing the battle, building socialism. I want you to know that I’m not withdrawing a single comma from this proposal. I’ll continue putting the proposal to the Venezuelan people.” The loss of the referendum admittedly will slow down the process of building Socialism in Venezuela. Further grassroots empowerment of the Venezuelan people, through the expansion of communal councils and workers councils will have to wait for the time being. As will attempts to pull the reigns on Venezuela’s independent central bank, guarantee university education, the push for social gains such as a lowering of the voting age, the move towards achieving gender parity in politics, public financing of elections, pensions for workers in the informal sector, recognition of Afro-Venezuelans, the pursuit of full Gay Civil Rights and the furthering of land reforms. So in the short-term the tightening of the noose against the morally bankrupt Venezuelan bourgeoisie will be delayed.
For the meantime however, Chavez will still have until the end of 2012 to rule, and he can address the contradictions within his transition to Socialism, certain economic problems, consolidate the tangible gains of the revolution thus far, and continue to empower and create new grassroots institutions that can directly empower voters. He can also, if he does not manage to have the Constitution amended, prove he is truly a champion of the people and not a shameless self-promoter, by allowing his government to get ready for a post-Chavez period following 2012. During this period the Left in Venezuela, which still receives popular support, can prepare itself for the inevitable assault that will come at the end of the charismatic Chavez’s term.
What ever the future is for Venezuela, the people saved and the lives enhanced by the housing, anti-poverty, and health care programs started during the past decade is undeniable. Democratic socialists can only hope that Chavez can continue to enjoy support by addressing issues such as crime and corruption and continuing the push towards a new, 21st century socialism, which would mean true worker empowerment and the breaking of unjust Capitalist social relations, like he claims, and not transitioning towards a 20th century deformed statist model.
Print This Post
I recommend Rahul Mahajan’s recent commentaries on Chavez at http://www.empirenotes.org/. One key paragraph:
“According to Venezuela’s own Central Bank, income inequality has increased in the Chavez years; the Gini coefficient, a common measure of inequality, went from .44 in 2000 to .48 in 2005. At the same time, and in accordance with this, according again to the Central Bank, the share of remuneration to capital in the GDP has increased dramatically and that to labor has decreased. According to the Economist, even the incidence of stunting and malnutrition in children has increased during Chavez’s term, from 8.4 per thousand to 9.1 per thousand. During roughly the same period, the financial sector increased in size by 160%.
Socialism, 21st century or otherwise, should be made of sterner stuff.”
Obviously, I agree with you, but consider that for almost 7 years this was a Social Democratic movement and also only recently morphed into a Democratic Socialist movement but advances in literacy and health care have been staggering. There have also been efforts to improve housing.
The use of grassroots community councils is also a huge step towards radical democracy. Shortages need to be addressed in the Mercals, corruption and crime also need to be addressed.
referring just to your example, keep in mind that, that is simply one indicator, and that doctors are now in places they werent before. that stat quoted in the Economist comes straight from the government of Venezuela itself; it may show that the government is actually recording rural malnutrition better. The doctor to citizen ratio has blown up under Chavez, it is one of his biggest achievments, and lots of these doctors are Cubans working in Venezuela in return for subsidized oil.
Nice piece. Something most of the American press seemed to ignore were some of the very important proposals he put forward-i.e. the social intitiatives that could not be spinned to make him look like a despot.
Chavez is still a mixed bag who has not proven himself to be very democratic. His feud with the Spanish king was just silly, and he has a tendency to pick pointless fights internationally and ally himself with people who are not friends to democratic socialists, such as Putin.
Personally, I have more hope for people like Morales, Lula, and Batchelet than Chavez, but I am glad he stands up to Bush.
There’s no reason to have any hope for Lula, and certainly none for Bachelet. Her government is committed to neoliberalism, as is virtually all of her party. See:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12869
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Chile_Good_Democracy%3F.html
I agree with you on Lula, Bachelet is a little more complicated, I think she wants to use neoliberal policies to try to encourage growth, while using government spending, derived from tax revenue from that growth to address social inequality and substandard living conditions for Chile’s poor. It’s a very moderate, 3rd way position I agree, but well intended.
Chavez’s achievements have come under a lot of attack, I blame a lot of the inflation and other ills merely on flight of capital out of Venezuela, somethings the business interests do whenever Leftists get strong. I agree with his spat with the King, at first I looked down upon it, but he was provoked by pompous and imperialist rhetoric coming from the Spanish PM, and attacked the former Spanish PM who was quick to visit the murderous dictatorship that overthrew Chavez briefly in 2002.
Morales is a good place to place bets on. I find him intelligent and honest. Ortega I am far more dubious about, I agree with some of his policies but he has a lot of questionable views on social issues, he’s embraced the Church in his recent reelection bid and has abandoned some of his Marxist/Socialist roots from his 1980s years.
“While supporting abortion rights during his presidency during the 1980s, Ortega has since embraced the Catholic church’s position of strong opposition.[13] While non-emergency abortions have long been illegal in Nicaragua, recently even abortions “in the case where the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life” have been made illegal in the days before the election, with a 6 years prison term in such cases too — a move supported by Ortega”
Ortega still has made some impressive economic gains for his people’s poor.