[News] Venezuela: Between Ballots and Bullets
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Tue Nov 13 14:12:44 EST 2007
Venezuela: Between Ballots and Bullets
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/venezuela-between-ballots-and-bullets/
by James Petras / November 13th, 2007
Introduction
Venezuelas democratically elected Present Chavez
faces the most serious threat since the April 11, 2002 military coup.
Violent street demonstrations by privileged
middle and upper middle class university students
have led to major street battles in and around
the center of Caracas. More seriously, the former
Minister of Defense, General Raul Isaias Baduel,
who resigned in July, has made explicit calls for
a military coup in a November 5th press
conference which he convoked exclusively for the
right and far-right mass media and political
parties, while striking a posture as an individual dissident.
The entire international and local private mass
media has played up Baduels speeches, press
conferences along with fabricated accounts of the
oppositionist student rampages, presenting them
as peaceful protests for democratic rights
against the government referendum scheduled for December 2, 2007.
The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the
BBC News and the Washington Post have all primed
their readers for years with stories of President
Chavez authoritarianism. Faced with
constitutional reforms which strengthen the
prospects for far-reaching political-social
democratization, the US, European and Latin
American media have cast pro-coup ex-military
officials as democratic dissidents, former
Chavez supporters disillusioned with his resort
to dictatorial powers in the run-up to and
beyond the December 2, 2007 vote in the
referendum on constitutional reform. Not a single
major newspaper has mentioned the democratic core
of the proposed reforms the devolution of
public spending and decision to local
neighborhood and community councils. Once again
as in Chile in 1973, the US mass media is
complicit in an attempt to destroy a Latin American democracy.
Even sectors of the center-left press and parties
in Latin America have reproduced right-wing
propaganda. On November the self-styled leftist
Mexican daily La Jornada headline read
Administrators and Students from the Central
University of Venezuela (UCV) Accuse Chavez of
Promoting Violence. The article then proceeded
to repeat the rightist fabrications about
electoral polls, which supposedly showed the
constitutional amendments facing defeat.
The United States Government, both the Republican
White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress
are once again overtly backing the new attempt to
oust the popular-nationalist President Chavez and
to defeat the highly progressive constitutional amendments.
The Referendum: Defining and Deepening the Social Transformation
The point of confrontation is the forthcoming
referendum on constitutional reforms initiated by
President Chavez, debated, amended and
democratically voted on by the Venezuelan
Congress over the past 6 months. There was
widespread and open debate and criticism of
specific sectors of the Constitution. The private
mass media, overwhelmingly viscerally anti-Chavez
and pro-White House, unanimously condemned any
and all the constitutional amendments. A sector
of the leadership of one of the components of the
pro-Chavez coalition (PODEMOS) joined the
Catholic Church hierarchy, the leading business
and cattlemans association, bankers and sectors
of the university and student elite to attack the
proposed constitutional reforms. Exploiting to
the hilt all of Venezuelas democratic freedoms
(speech, assembly and press) the opposition has
denigrated the referendum as authoritarian even
as most sectors of the opposition coalition
attempted to arouse the military to intervene.
The opposition coalition of the rich and
privileged fear the constitutional reforms
because they will have to grant a greater share
of their profits to the working class, lose their
monopoly over market transactions to publicly
owned firms, and see political power evolve
toward local community councils and the executive
branch. While the rightist and liberal media in
Venezuela, Europe and the US have fabricated
lurid charges about the authoritarian reforms,
in fact the amendments propose to deepen and extend social democracy.
A brief survey of the key constitutional
amendments openly debated and approved by a
majority of freely elected Venezuelan congress
members gives the lie to charges of
authoritarianism by its critics. The amendments
can be grouped according to political, economic and social changes.
The most important political change is the
creation of new locally based democratic forms of
political representation in which elected
community and communal institutions will be
allocated state revenues rather than the corrupt,
patronage-infested municipal and state
governments. This change toward decentralization
will encourage a greater practice of direct
democracy in contrast to the oligarchic
tendencies embedded in the current centralized representative system.
Secondly, contrary to the fabrications of
ex-General Baduel, the amendments do not destroy
the existing constitution, since the amendments
modify in greater or lesser degree only 20% of
the articles of the constitution (69 out of 350).
The amendments providing for unlimited term
elections is in line with the practices of many
parliamentary systems, as witnessed by the five
terms in office of Australian Prime Minister
Howard, the half century rule of Japans Liberal
Democratic Party, the four terms of US President
Franklin Roosevelt, the multi-term election of
Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in the UK among
others. No one ever questions their democratic
credentials for multi-term executive office
holding, nor should current critics selectively
label Chavez as an authoritarian for doing the same.
Political change increasing the presidential term
of office from 6 to 7 years will neither increase
or decrease presidential powers, as the
opposition claims, because the separation of
legislative, judicial and executive powers will
continue and free elections will subject the
President to periodic citizen review.
The key point of indefinite elections is that
they are free elections, subject to voter
preference, in which, in the case of Venezuela,
the vast majority of the mass media, Catholic
hierarchy, US-funded NGOs, big business
associations will still wield enormous financial
resources to finance opposition activity hardly an authoritarian context.
The amendment allowing the executive to declare a
state of emergency and intervene in the media in
the face of violent activity to overthrow the
constitution is essential for safeguarding
democratic institutions. In light of several
authoritarian violent attempts to seize power
recently by the current opposition, the amendment
allows dissent but also allows democracy to
defend itself against the enemies of freedom. In
the lead up to the US-backed military coup of
April 11, 2002, and the petroleum lockout by its
senior executives which devastated the economy (a
decline of 30% of GNP in 2002/2003), if the
Government had possessed and utilized emergency
powers, Congress and the Judiciary, the electoral
process and the living standards of the
Venezuelan people would have been better
protected. Most notably, the Government could
have intervened against the mass media aiding and
abetting the violent overthrow of the democratic
process, like any other democratic government. It
should be clear that the amendment allowing for
emergency powers has a specific context and
reflects concrete experiences: the current
opposition parties, business federations and
church hierarchies have a violent,
anti-democratic history. The destabilization
campaign against the current referendum and the
appeals for military intervention most
prominently and explicitly stated by retired
General Baduel (defended by his notorious
adviser-apologist, the academic-adventurer Heinz
Dietrich), are a clear indication that emergency
powers are absolutely necessary to send a clear
message that reactionary violence will be met by the full force of the law.
The reduction of voting age from 18 to 16 will
broaden the electorate, increase the number of
participants in the electoral process and give
young people a greater say in national politics
through institutional channels. Since many
workers enter the labor market at a young age and
in some cases start families earlier, this
amendment allows young workers to press their
specific demands on employment and contingent labor contracts.
The amendment reducing the workday to six hours
is vehemently opposed by the opposition led by
the big business federation, FEDECAMARAS, but has
the overwhelming support of the trade unions and
workers from all sectors. It will allow for
greater family time, sports, education, skill
training, political education and social
participation, as well as membership in the newly
formed community councils. Related labor
legislation and changes in property rights
including a greater role for collective ownership
will strengthen labors bargaining power with
capital, extending democracy to the workplace.
Finally the amendment eliminating so-called
Central Bank autonomy means that elected
officials responsive to the voters will replace
Central Bankers (frequently responsive to private
bankers, overseas investors and international
financial officials) in deciding public spending
and monetary policy. One major consequence will
be the reduction of excess reserves in devalued
dollar denominated funds and an increase in
financing for social and productive activity, a
diversity of currency holdings and a reduction in
irrational foreign borrowing and indebtedness.
The fact of the matter is that the Central Bank
was not autonomous, it was dependent on what
the financial markets demanded, independent of
the priorities of elected officials responding to popular needs.
As the Chavez Government Turns to Democratic
Socialism: Centrists Defect and Seek Military Solutions
As Venezuelas moves from political to social
transformation, from a capitalist welfare state
toward democratic socialism, predictable
defections and additions occur. As in most other
historical experiences of social transformation,
sectors of the original government coalition
committed to formal institutional political
changes defect when the political process moves
toward greater egalitarianism and property and a
power shift to the populace. Ideologues of the
Center regret the breaking of the status quo
consensus between oligarchs and people
(labeling the new social alignments as
authoritarian) even as the Center embraces
the profoundly anti-democratic Right and appeals for military intervention.
A similar process of elite defections and
increased mass support is occurring in Venezuela
as the referendum, with its clear class choices,
comes to the fore. Lacking confidence in their
ability to defeat the constitutional amendments
through the ballot, fearful of the democratic
majority, resentful of the immense popular appeal
of the democratically elected President Chavez,
the Center has joined the Right in a last ditch
effort to unify extra-parliamentary forces to
defeat the will of the electorate.
Emblematic of the New Right and the Centrist
defections is the ex-Minister of Defense, Raul
Baduel, whose virulent attack on the President,
the Congress, the electoral procedures and the
referendum mark him as an aspirant to head up a
US-backed right-wing seizure of power.
The liberal and right wing mass media and
unscrupulous centrist propagandists have
falsely portrayed Raul Baduel as the savior of
Chavez following the military coup of April 2002.
The fact of the matter is that Baduel intervened
only after hundreds of thousands of poor
Venezuelans poured down from the ranchos,
surrounded the Presidential Palace, leading to
division in the armed forces. Baduel rejected the
minority of rightist military officers favoring a
massive bloodbath and aligned with other military
officials who opposed extreme measures against
the people and the destruction of the established
political order. The latter group included
officials who supported Chavez
nationalist-populist policies and others, like
Baduel, who opposed the coup-makers because it
radicalized and polarized society leading to a
possible class-based civil war with uncertain
outcome. Baduel was for the restoration of a
chastised Chavez who would maintain the existing socio-economic status quo.
Within the Chavez government, Baduel represented
the anti-communist tendency, which pressed the
President to reconcile with the moderate
democratic right and big business. Domestically,
Baduel opposed the extension of public ownership
and internationally favored close collaboration
with the far-right Colombian Defense Ministry.
Baduels term of office as Defense Minister
reflected his conservative propensities and his
lack of competence in matters of security,
especially with regard to internal security. He
failed to protect Venezuelas frontiers from
military incursions by Colombias armed forces.
Worse he failed to challenge Colombias flagrant
violation of international norms with regard to
political exiles. While Baduel was Minister of
Defense, Venezuelan landlords armed paramilitary
groups assassinated over 150 peasants active in
land reform while the National Guard looked the
other way. Under Baduels watch over 120
Colombian paramilitary forces infiltrated the
country. The Colombian military frequently
crossed the Venezuelan border to attack Colombian
refugees. Under Baduel, Venezuelan military
officials collaborated in the kidnapping of
Rodrigo Granda (a foreign affairs emissary of the
FARC) in broad daylight in the center of Caracas.
Baduel made no effort to investigate or protest
this gross violation of Venezuelan sovereignty,
until President Chavez was informed and
intervened. Throughout Baduels term as Minister
of Defense he developed strong ties to Colombias
military intelligence (closely monitored by US
Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA) and
extradited several guerrillas from both the ELN
and the FARC to the hands of Colombian torturers.
At the time of his retirement as Minister of
Defense, Baduel made a July 2007 speech in which
he clearly targeted the leftist and Marxist
currents in the trade union (UNT) and Chavez
newly announced PSUV (The Unified Socialist Party
of Venezuela). His speech, in the name of
Christian socialist, was in reality a
vituperative and ill-tempered anti-communist
diatribe, which pleased Pope Benedict (Ratzinger).
Baduels November 5 speech however marks his
public adherence to the hard-line opposition, its
rhetoric, fabrications and visions of an
authoritarian reversal of Chavez program of
democratic socialism. First and foremost, Baduel,
following the lead of the White House and the
Venezuelan hard right, denounced the entire
process of Congressional debate on the
Constitutional amendments, and open electoral
campaigning leading up to the referendum as in
effect a coup detat. Every expert and outside
observer disagreed even those opposed to the
referendum. Baduels purpose however was to
question the legitimacy of the entire political
process in order to justify his call for military
intervention. His rhetoric calling the
congressional debate and vote a fraud and
fraudulent procedures point to Baduels effort
to denigrate existing representative institutions
in order to justify a military coup, which would dismantle them.
Baduels denial of political intent is laughable
since he only invited opposition media and
politicians to his press conference and was
accompanied by several military officials. Baduel
resembles the dictator who accuses the victim of
the crimes he is about to commit. In calling the
referendum on constitutional reform a coup, he
incites the military to launch a coup. In an open
appeal for military action he directs the
military to reflect of the context of
constitutional reform. He repeatedly calls on
military officials to assess carefully the
changes the elected government has proposed in a
hasty manner and through fraudulent procedures.
While denigrating democratically elected
institutions, Baduel resorts to vulgar flattery
and false modesty to induce the military to
revolt. While immodestly denying that he could
act as spokesperson for the Armed Forces, he
advised the rightist reporters present and
potential military cohort that you cannot
underrate the capacity of analysis and reasoning of the military.
Cant, hypocrisy and disinterested posturing run
through Baduels pronouncements. His claim of
being an apolitical critic is belied by his
intention to go on a nationwide speaking tour
attacking the constitutional reforms, in meetings
organized by the rightwing opposition. There is
absolutely no doubt that he will not only be
addressing civilian audiences but will make every
effort to meet with active military officers who
he might convince to reflect
and plot the
overthrow of the government and reverse the
results of the referendum. President Chavez has
every right to condemn Baduel as a traitor,
though given his long-term hostility to
egalitarian social transformation it may be more
to the point to say that Baduel is now revealing his true colors.
The danger to Venezuelan democracy is not in
Baduel as an individual he is out of the
government and retired from active military
command. The real danger is his effort to arouse
the active military officers with command of
troops, to answer his call to action or as he
cleverly puts it for the military to reflect on
the context of the constitutional reforms.
Baduels analysis and action program places the
military as the centerpiece of politics, supreme over the 16 million voters.
His vehement defense of private property in
line with his call for military action is a
clever tactic to unite the Generals, Bankers and
the middle class in the infamous footsteps of
Augusto Pinochet, the bloody Chilean tyrant.
The class polarization in the run-up to the
referendum has reached its most acute expression:
the remains of the multi-class coalition
embracing a minority of the middle class and the
great majority of the working power is
disintegrating. Millions of previously apathetic
or apolitical young workers, unemployed poor and
low-income women (domestic workers, laundresses,
single parents) are joining the huge popular
demonstrations overflowing the main avenues and
plazas in favor of the constitutional amendments.
At the same time political defections have
increased among the centrist-liberal minority in
the Chavez coalition. Fourteen deputies in the
National Assembly, less than 10%, mostly from
PODEMOS, have joined the opposition. Reliable
sources in Venezuela (Axis of Logic/Les Blough
Nov. 11, 2007) report that Attorney General
Beneral Isaias Rodriguez, a particularly
incompetent crime fighter, and the Comptroller
General Cloudosbaldo Russian are purportedly
resigning and joining the opposition. More
seriously, these same reports claim that the 4th
Armed Division in Marcay is loyal to Golpista
Raul Baduel. Some suspect Baduel is using his
long-term personal ties with the current Minister
of Defense, Gustavo Briceno Rangel to convince
him to defect and join in the pre-coup
preparations. Large sums of US funding is flowing
in to pay off state and local officials in cash
and in promises to share in the oil booty if
Chavez is ousted. The latest US political buy-out
includes Governor Luis Felipe Acosta Carliz from
the state of Carabobo. The mass media have
repeatedly featured these new defectors to the
right in their hourly news reports highlighting
their break with Chavez coup detat.
The referendum is turning into an unusually
virulent case of a class against class war, in
which the entire future of the Latin American
left is at stake as well as Washingtons hold on its biggest oil supplier.
Conclusion
Venezuelan democracy, the Presidency of Hugo
Chavez and the great majority of the popular
classes face a mortal threat. The US is facing
repeated electoral defeats and is incapable of
large-scale external intervention because of
over-extension of its military forces in the
Middle East; it is committed once more to a
violent overthrow of Chavez. Venezuela through
the constitutional reforms, will broaden and
deepen popular democratic control over
socio-economic policy. New economic sectors will
be nationalized. Greater public investments and
social programs will take off. Venezuela is
moving inexorably toward diversifying its petrol
markets, currency reserves and its political
alliances. Time is running out for the White
House: Washingtons political levers of influence
are weakening. Baduel is seen as the one best
hope of igniting a military seizure, restoring
the oligarchs to power and decimating the mass popular movements.
President Chavez is correctly evaluating the
high command and states that he has full
confidence in the national armed forces and their
components. Yet the best guarantee is to strike
hard and fast, precisely against Baduels
followers and cohorts. Rounding up a few dozen or
hundred military plotters is a cheap price to pay
for saving the lives of thousands of workers and
activists who would be massacred in any bloody seizure of power.
History has repeatedly taught that when you put
social democracy, egalitarianism and popular
power at the top of the political agenda, as
Chavez has done, and as the vast majority of the
populace enthusiastically responds, the Right,
the reactionary military, the Centrist
political defectors and ideologues, the White
House, the hysterical middle classes and the
Church cardinals will sacrifice any and all
democratic freedoms to defend their property,
privileges and power by whatever means and at
whatever cost necessary. In the current
all-pervasive confrontation between the popular
classes of Venezuela and their oligarchic and
military enemies, only by morally, politically
and organizationally arming the people can the
continuity of the democratic process of social transformation be guaranteed.
Change will come, the question is whether it will
be through the ballot or the bullet.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at
Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year
membership in the class struggle, is an adviser
to the landless and jobless in Brazil and
Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization
Unmasked (Zed Books). His latest book is The
Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity
Press, 2006). His forthcoming book is Rulers and
Ruled (Bankers, Zionists and Militants (Clarity
Press, Atlanta). He can be reached at:
jpetras at binghamton.edu.
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/author/JamesPetras/>Read
other articles by James, or <http://petras.lahaine.org/>visit James's website.
This article was posted on Tuesday, November
13th, 2007 at 10:15 am and is filed under
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/imperialism/>Imperialism,
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/media/>Media,
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/south-america/>South
America,
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/venezuela/>Venezuela.
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/venezuela-between-ballots-and-bullets/email/>Send
to a friend.
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/20071113/9c3d43e6/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list