FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Referendum on Chávez is Only a Preview of Bigger Battles to Come

Caracas.

The populist Venezuela President Hugo Chávez Frias looks likely to win the recall elections on August 15, but the conservative opposition will keep battering away-and with Washington’s help.

In a typically wide-ranging and lengthy press conference August 12–Noam Chomsky, Eduardo Galleano, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau each got mentions–Chávez mixed defiant statements about U.S. imperialism and George W. Bush (the “master” of the opposition) with an offer to meet with his rivals after his expected victory.

For their part, the opposition leaders, who later that day drew more than 100,000 to rally across town in the upscale neighborhood of Altamira, whipped up the vote for a “yes” to the recall-and showed little interest in reconciliation with Chávez, who they tried and fail to oust in a coup in 2002.

Financed by virtually all of Venezuelan big business and given all-out support by the corporate electronic media, the opposition may be past its peak but can still muster large numbers. The opposition has taken up the slogan “against jobs, insecurity and disunion” to appeal to the lower middle classes. Many of these people have been downwardly mobile or economically insecure since neoliberal, free-market “structural adjustment” came to Venezuela in 1989, the year a popular uprising against International Monetary Fund austerity measures was put down with 1,500 killed.

The opposition’s appeal to the middle class on economic issues, however, doesn’t square with their earlier attack on Chávez’s social programs, known as “missions.” Taking a page from NGOs, Chávez’s team has bypassed the inefficient and opposition-dominated state bureaucracy to create ten new operations, including medical clinics in shantytowns and villages, staffed by Cuban doctors; technical assistance to farmers; food security for impoverished indigenous groups. (Think about it: in the U.S. people lose their health care every day; in impoverished Venezuela, the system is expanding). A poster seen in the Caracas subway captures the impact of the programs: A Black woman says, “Today I’m a maid; tomorrow, I’ll be a social worker.” Such programs an essential part of what Chávez calls his “Bolívarian revolutionary process”-a populist program of aid to the poor and nationalist insistence on Venezuela’s sovereignty. It’s a charismatic, top-down, leadership-centered “revolution,” however, compared to the mass insurrection that toppled the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979.

Nevertheless missions-funded by high oil prices-have deepened Chávez’s support among the poor, and were key to mobilizing an estimated 1.2 million to a “Vote No” rally August 8. (An opposition rally that day drew well over 100,00 as well, but was nevertheless far smaller than its counterpart). It’s the sight of poor Venezuelans-some 80 percent of the population-politically active and with raised expectations that terrifies the wealthy and upper middle class. To mobilize votes, however, they need to give a populist cover to the opposition. To that end, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV in Spanish), long controlled by the Democratic Action (AD) party, has played a prominent role, as has the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) and a Maoist sect, Red Flag. But the brief U.S.-backed seizure of power by Pedro Carmona, head of the business group, FEDECAMARAS from April 11-13 discredited the opposition in the eyes of millions. The failure of the bosses’ “strike” in the oil industry in 2002-2003-which dealt a huge blow to the Venezuelan economy-also cost the opposition support. The aftermath of the oil strike saw the main oil workers unions and others leave the CTV to form the National Union of Workers (UNT), which is in the process of developing its structure and program.

From the point of view of Chávez supporters in the social movements and popular organizations, the referendum shouldn’t be taking place at all. The recall provision is a feature of the constitution written by Chávez supporters and approved in 2000; the opposition used the tactic for want of any other. But the social movement activists see this as unwarranted concession, given irregularities in the petition-gathering process for the vote.

For Gonzalo Gomez, a veteran socialist, writer for the activist Web site Aporrea.org and a nonstop activist, the worry is that “the process” is becoming bureaucratized and bogged down-and that Chávez is seeking legitimacy by allowing the referendum and negotiating with the opposition rather than pressing ahead with further social change. Another leading activist, Fresia Impinza, is worried about a fraud via the privatized state telecommunications company (the U.S. telecom giant SBC is responsible for transmitting the data for the vote). Known for a series of high-profile lawsuits and legal actions against corrupt officials tied to the old governments, Impenza ran a series of daily meetings in the run-up to the vote to mobilize activists to defend key economic and political locations in the event of a coup attempt or provocation. Government spokespeople dismiss such possibilities, but given Venezuela’s recent history, conspiracy theories can’t be dismissed.

Indeed, as most opinion polls showed a likely Chávez victory, the opposition announced that they would declare their own results based on exit polls at 2 p.m.-hours before the voting concludes. If the electronic voting-itself the subject of a huge number of conspiracy theories-later shows a Chávez win, then they will be expected to cry fraud. If a manual count of paper receipts confirms a Chávez win, the opposition may claim that Chavistas in the military stuffed the ballot boxes.

Then there’s the threat of provocations. This would lay the basis for claims that violence marred the elections, rendering them illegitimate-which is where observers like Jimmy Carter and diplomats for the Organization of American States comes in. Moreover, Washington won’t relent in squeezing and destabilizing Chávez if he wins his election and Bush loses his: John Kerry has already gone out of his way to call Venezuela a “threat” to the U.S. (In the event of a recall of Chávez, his vice president would take over, and Chávez could run again in the regular elections in 2006).

For all the intensity, the referendum may be a preview of bigger battles to come. After all, there’s no such thing as revolution from above. The pro- and anti-Chávez rallies reflected the massive polarization in society, one that sooner or later will find an expression of direct confrontation of social classes. The referendum has only postponed such a class.

LEE SUSTAR is a regular contributor to CounterPunch and the Socialist Worker. He can be reached at: lsustar@ameritech.net

 

More articles by:

LEE SUSTAR is the labor editor of Socialist Worker

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail