<html>
<body>
<h1><b>Venezuela: Between Ballots and
Bullets</b></h1><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/venezuela-between-ballots-and-bullets/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/venezuela-between-ballots-and-bullets/<br>
<br>
</a>by James Petras / November 13th, 2007<br><br>
<b>Introduction<br><br>
</b>Venezuela’s democratically elected Present Chavez faces the most
serious threat since the April 11, 2002 military coup.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
The entire international and local private mass media has played up
Baduel’s 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. <br><br>
The <i>New York Ti</i>mes, the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, the BBC News
and the <i>Washington Post</i> 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.<br><br>
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 <i>La Jornada</i> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>The Referendum: Defining and Deepening the Social
Transformation<br><br>
</b>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 cattleman’s association,
bankers and sectors of the university and student elite to attack the
proposed constitutional reforms. Exploiting to the hilt all of
Venezuela’s 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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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).<br><br>
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
Japan’s 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
The key point of indefinite elections is that they are <i>free
elections</i>, subject to voter preference, in which, in the case of
Venezuela, the vast majority of the mass media, Catholic hierarchy,
US-funded NGO’s, big business associations will still wield enormous
financial resources to finance opposition activity hardly an
‘authoritarian’ context.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 labor’s bargaining power with
capital, extending democracy to the workplace.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>As the Chavez Government Turns to Democratic Socialism: Centrists
Defect and Seek Military Solutions <br><br>
</b>As Venezuela’s 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Baduel’s 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
Venezuela’s frontiers from military incursions by Colombia’s armed
forces. Worse he failed to challenge Colombia’s 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 Baduel’s 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 Baduel’s
term as Minister of Defense he developed strong ties to Colombia’s
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.<br><br>
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).<br><br>
Baduel’s 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 d’etat’. Every expert
and outside observer disagreed even those opposed to the referendum.
Baduel’s 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 Baduel’s effort to denigrate existing
representative institutions in order to justify a military coup, which
would dismantle them. <br><br>
Baduel’s 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.’ <br><br>
Cant, hypocrisy and disinterested posturing run through Baduel’s
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.
<br><br>
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.’ Baduel’s analysis and action program places the military as the
<i>centerpiece of politics</i>, supreme over the 16 million voters.
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 d’etat’.
<br><br>
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 Washington’s hold on its biggest oil
supplier.<br><br>
<b>Conclusion<br><br>
</b>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: Washington’s
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. <br><br>
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 Baduel’s 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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Change will come, the question is whether it will be through the ballot
or the bullet.<br><br>
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
<i>Globalization Unmasked</i> (Zed Books). His latest book is <i>The
Power of Israel in the United States</i> (Clarity Press, 2006). His
forthcoming book is <i>Rulers and Ruled (Bankers, Zionists and
Militants</i> (Clarity Press, Atlanta). He can be reached at:
jpetras@binghamton.edu.
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/author/JamesPetras/">Read other
articles by James</a>, or <a href="http://petras.lahaine.org/">visit
James's website</a>.<br><br>
This article was posted on Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am and
is filed under
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/imperialism/">
Imperialism</a>,
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/media/">Media</a>,
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/south-america/">South
America</a>,
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/category/venezuela/">Venezuela</a>
.
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/venezuela-between-ballots-and-bullets/email/">
Send to a friend.</a> <br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>