[News] Chesa Boudin: Venezuelan Democratic Process Is Working
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Fri Dec 7 12:09:30 EST 2007
Chesa Boudin: Venezuelan Democratic Process Is Working
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1033/1/
Written by Katie Halper
Thursday, 06 December 2007
Source: <http://alternet.org/mediaculture/69787/>AlterNet
Last Sunday, Venezuelans voted against reforms
put forth by President Hugo Chavez. The vote
against Chavez's
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7120758.stm>proposals
for constitutional reform was surprising and
extremely close, 51 percent to 49 percent. And
yet both the United States and
<http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/03/venezuela.referendum/index.html>Chavez
hailed the result of the referendum as a sign of Venezuela's democracy.
Looking for an on-the-ground account of the
referendum and insights into the results, I spoke
to journalist and activist Chesa Boudin, author
of
<http://www.amazon.com/Venezuelan-Revolution-100-Questions-100-Answers/dp/1560257733>The
Venezuelan Revolution: 100 Questions and 100
Answers. Boudin lived in Venezuela while
researching Latin American public policy as part
of his master's degree from Oxford University and
is back in Venezuela working on a new book about
Latin America's shift to the left and his own political awakening.
In a phone interview from Caracas with AlterNet,
Boudin reflected on why the defeat of the
referendum is a victory for Chavez, what JFK can
teach the United States about respecting
revolutions, the myth of the Chavez dictatorship,
the now-obsolete "fraud" T-shirts preprinted by
the opposition, and the good, the bad and the
ugly (and the pretty) of Venezuela.
Katie Halper: What is it like in Caracas right now?
Chesa Boudin: It's very calm here. Of course you
have the normal violent crime and criminal
activity in Venezuela. That is constant. If you
had asked me last week, I would have said that
Chavez's referendum would have passed. But by the
end of Sunday, before they announced the results,
I knew that it wasn't going to win.
Halper: Why did it fail?
Boudin: First of all, there were real problems
with the content of the reform. Second of all,
there were problems with the process through
which they tried to get the reform passed. And
third of all, there is general discontent with
certain aspects of the government that weakened
voter turnout even though the government remains
very popular, and Chavez in particular is extremely popular.
Halper: What were your reservations?
Boudin: I was concerned about the centralization
of power, indefinite terms and expanded emergency
power. I was concerned about the vague nature and
confusing way many of the articles were drafted.
And I was also concerned about the government's
capacity to put into practice some of the
articles that were on their face excellent. Like
the expanded guarantees for social security for
taxi drivers, street vendors, etc., is a great
law. But in practice the government doesn't have
the ability at this stage to put that into
effect. Many of the changes they were making
could have been made through simple legislation;
they didn't need to be constitutional.
Halper: Why do you think Chavez wanted to do away with term limits?
Boudin: There is no question that Chavez wanted
to get rid of term limits. I think that was one
of the main motivations for the reform. I think
they chose this year rather than four years from
now, for two reasons. One, so they don't need to
worry about training new leadership. I think they
need to change the leadership. I would encourage
Chavez to stay in the government until his term
ends and then train new leadership. He should
allow somebody else to take charge for a change
to see what good comes from the sharing of power.
I think the other reason is because Chavez is a
military man, and he had a very powerful
successful electoral cycle last year when he won
with almost 20 percent over the opposition. I
think he saw the opportunity to steamroll forward
through elections. And I think it's a good thing
that there is a check on that. Chavez does
command the loyalty of the masses. But it's not a
blind loyalty. And it's good that there be a
check on executive power in any country.
Halper: Do you agree with Chavez's claim that
this is proof of Venezuela's democracy maturing?
Boudin: Yes. I think the government was
overconfident and took the popular support for
granted. And this will force the government to
realize that the grass-roots and popular support
is contingent and cannot be assumed or taken for
granted. There are people who will go out there
and vote simply because Chavez says they should
do. And they were able to get basically 50
percent of the vote. However, there were a lot of
people who simply weren't convinced because it
was rushed, because they had reservations. And
this will force the government to win, on a daily
basis, the support and respect of the masses.
That's an important thing for any government, not just this government.
It will also force Chavez and his inner circle to
reevaluate the information they get. The new
political party that Chavez founded a year ago
has roughly 5 million members, but Chavez didn't
even get the vote of all the people in the party.
He got 4.5 million votes, less than 4.5 actually.
So clearly there is a problem. The people around
Chavez are telling him what they think he wants
to hear. I think Chavez does a much better job
with keeping in touch with the people than Bush
does. And this will be a wake-up call for Chavez
and the whole political establishment and, hopefully, a very positive thing.
Halper: How do the results of the referendum
relate to the opposition's claim that Chavez is a dictator?
Boudin: Calling it "the opposition," as people do
both internationally and in Venezuela, makes it
sound like it one homogenous group. It's a very
diverse group that happens to be unified by their
hatred of Chavez and his model. But there's a
wide range, some of which, in the United States,
would be considered liberal, or mainstream. And
then there are right-wingers. Some of the
opposition doesn't call Chavez a dictator, but
most of them do. And certainly the U.S. media
tends to describe him in terms that suggest dictatorship.
But the point you're getting to is how does his
accepting the results change the position of the
opposition. I'm one of the people who identifies
with the Bolivarian revolution, who thinks the
outcome was pretty much perfect. I personally
had, as did almost every Venezuelan I talked to,
serious reservations about reform, even though it had lots of good things.
If this victory had been the other way around, if
Chavez had won by one percentage point the
opposition would have been in the streets crying
fraud. They already had the T-shirts printed.
This loss gave Chavez the opportunity to take the
high road. Thus far, at least, he has humbly
recognized the opposition's victory. And as long
as he continues to take the high road, I think
it's proof to Venezuela and to the world that
Chavez is not a dictator, that Venezuela is
democratic, that the popular will of the people is what matters.
The claim that Chavez is a dictator is based on
nothing but media hype and propaganda. He has
more of a democratic claim than Bush. He
continues to have the support of the majority of
the country, which Bush never had. Chavez has
been supported multiple times through elections,
recall referenda, and he's won with huge margins.
And the elections were monitored by the EU, the
Carter Center, the International Lawyers Guild.
People accuse Chavez of executing people. There
are executions in Venezuela, but not by the
state. The police are incompetent, the prison
system is atrocious; people are killed all the
time through gun violence. But that's not the
same thing as the government executing people.
That's not the same thing as the government
promoting death squads, which they do in
Colombia, a country we support. But violence is
there, and access to guns is a real problem.
Thus far the opposition has been the most
responsible that I've ever seen it. Again, the
opposition is a diverse group, but historically,
during the Chavez era, it has played a very
negative anti-democratic role, starting with the
coup in 2002, boycotting elections regularly,
crying out fraud when they couldn't get out
votes, trying to undermine the democratic
process. This is proof to them and the world that
this is a democratic system and that they do have
a chance to win gains if they go about it democratically.
Halper: Can you talk about the alleged CIA memo
that was circulated outlining the U.S. plan to intervene in Sunday's elections?
Boudin: I'm not an expert on CIA memos, but the
version that I saw was not plausible. It was only
in Spanish, it was a Word document, not a real
document that had been scanned. It may have been
based on some real U.S. intervention. There's no
question that the U.S. government and its
subsidiary grant-giving agencies like U.S.A.I.D.
and National Endowment for Democracy were sending
money to opposition groups. That's public
information. But whether this particular CIA plan
was a reality, I highly doubt. In Venezuela,
there is constant accusation of U.S. intervention
and, more often than not, it's rumors.
I want to be perfectly clear that there is a real
risk of intervention. The U.S.
<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html>participated
in the coup and has overthrown dozens of
governments in Latin America over the years. But
since the coup of 2002, the main form of U.S.
intervention and destabilization has been through
political and electoral means, investing millions
of dollars in opposition groups that advocate
against the government in the media and civil
society. The U.S. is trying very hard to unify
the opposition and find candidates to defeat
Chavez. If they do choose to increase
intervention, all the analysts I've read,
including ex-CIA agent
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8705>Philip
Agee, who wrote a report on this a few years ago,
suggest it will be through a low-intensity
paramilitary intervention, not a direct U.S. army
intervention like we see in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration doesn't have the political
capital to invade another country, and if they did it would be Iran.
I think Venezuela should prepare against
intervention, but not against a U.S. military
invasion, because it's not likely and because
there's nothing you can do about it if they bring
out the big guns. Venezuela is much better off
preparing against political electoral
intervention and the possibility of a
paramilitary destabilizing force, which was used in Nicaragua with the Contras.
Halper: Not that the Contras weren't a formidable enemy.
Boudin: Yes, but Nicaragua was a very poor,
easily starved country. Venezuela has billions of
dollars coming in every year from revenue and a
fairly up-to-date military arsenal and 26 million
people. So it's much bigger than Nicaragua. But I
think it's important to differentiate between
interventions like the Contras or the
paramilitaries in Colombia or Blackwater
intervention, which I think are possibilities, and an Iraq style intervention.
Halper: What do you want Americans to know about Venezuela?
Boudin: Venezuela's political process is a
democratic one, one in which the majority of
Venezuelans have cast their vote repeatedly. And
it's incumbent on the U.S., which advocates for
democracy at least rhetorically, not to intervene
or destabilize the Venezuelan political process.
Venezuelans should be free to choose their own
path and to make their own mistakes. As
Americans, we can learn from the good and the bad
of what happens in Venezuela. You have a peaceful
revolution in Venezuela. John F. Kennedy said,
"Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible
make violent revolutions inevitable." The quote applies to Venezuela perfectly.
At the same time that there is corruption and
there are problems, there are also revolutionary
programs that provide food, housing and free
healthcare, which is not only more cost-effective
but more humane than what we have in our country.
And rather than condemning it because Hugo Chavez
and George Bush both have a tendency to talk too
much and say stupid things, people should come
and see Venezuela for themselves.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/69787/
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20071207/c4d6a1d9/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list