<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element" dir="ltr"> <font
size="-2"><a class="domain reader-domain"
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14142">https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14142</a></font>
<h1 class="reader-title">‘Despotic Patrimonialism’ Emerges in
Rural Venezuela: A Conversation with Gerardo Sieveres &
Arbonio Ortega</h1>
<div class="credits reader-credits">By Cira Pascual Marquina –
November 8, 2018<br>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content line-height4 reader-show-element"
dir="ltr">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div>
<div>
<p><em>From July 12 to August 1st, a large contingent of
Venezuelan </em><em>campesinos</em><em> marched
across the country in what came to be known as the “<a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13966">Admirable
Campesino March</a>.” They walked from Guanare in
Portuguesa State to Caracas to raise awareness about
the many problems facing small farmers, including
evictions, harassment and general neglect at the
hands of state institutions.</em></p>
<p><em>Here we learn about the march and its objectives
in the voice of two of the Venezuelan campesino
movement's most prominent leaders, Gerardo </em><em>Sieveres</em><em>
and </em><em>Arbonio</em><em> Ortega.</em></p>
<p><strong>How did the Admirable Campesino March come to
be? What got a group of </strong><strong>campesinos</strong><strong>
to walk more than 400 kilometers?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Arbonio</strong><strong> Ortega: </strong>Our
march was triggered by the deep complexities of the
campesino situation. Criminalization of our struggle,
difficulties getting agricultural inputs, murder of
campesinos, impunity, and the lack of attention from
state institutions, whose main purpose is attending to
campesino issues.</p>
<p>Months before we began our long march, we organized
many meetings and assemblies to address the critical
situation of campesinos throughout the country. In
these meetings, we developed a plan or proposal for
how to attend to the campesino situation. From there,
we began to look for a channel to make our demands
heard in Caracas. So we made a visit to Caracas.
There, we called for an end to the criminalization of
landless campesinos by the state, and we called for
protecting the lives of those being threatened by the
landowning class’ thugs. During the visit, we also
requested that campesinos receive agricultural inputs,
particularly fertilizers, much needed for the
successful completion of the first corn crop.</p>
<p>Upon our return from Caracas, Jesus Leon and
Guillermo Toledo, two campesinos active in the
movement, were killed in Palo Quemao, a recovered
farmstead1] in Barinas, in yet another case of
landowner violence [May 12, 2018]. As the
criminalization and threats against many campesino
leaders continued, we began to hold meetings in other
regions of the country. We went to Guarico, Cojedes,
Barinas, Portuguesa and Sur del Lago, and out of those
meetings emerged the plan to do symbolic takeovers or
occupations of the regional offices of two state
institutions: INTI [Venezuelan Land Institute] and
Agropatria [state-owned and operated supplier of seeds
and other agricultural inputs]. The <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13902">last
occupation was in INTI Barinas</a>. After that
occupation, we were called by the head of the INTI to
a meeting in Florentino [a state‐run agricultural
investigation center]. The outcome was a plan and a
series of agreements, but the institutions did not act
upon those agreements.</p>
<p>It became obvious then that we had to develop another
strategy to be heard. And thus, we decided to go to
Caracas again, but in larger numbers, to demand that
our voices be heard. In preparing the visit, we
analyzed the Zamora Takes Caracas March [a campesino
takeover of Caracas in 2006 to demand an end to
impunity] and many campesino takeovers of Caracas that
were carried out when Chavez was still alive. The
social impact of the Zamora Takes Caracas March marked
a seachange in the campesino struggle, but after that
there was a sort of dispersion of the campesino
movement and the cooptation of some campesino
organizations.</p>
<p>So, analyzing the history of the campesino struggle
in the years of the Bolivarian Revolution, and
reflecting on the current situation, we decided that
we would march to Caracas, as a collective sacrifice
and as an homage to earlier campesino struggles.</p>
<p><strong>If I remember correctly, during those June
and early July days </strong><strong>campesinos</strong><strong>
faced more violence from the landowning class...</strong></p>
<p><strong>Arbonio</strong><strong> Ortega:</strong>
Right, around that time, in a recent recovery of land
in a farmstead called “El Esfuerzo” in Portuguesa
State, thugs of the landowning class burnt the school
and some warehouses. They also burned the sheds where
the campesinos were living, and that became yet
another cause for us. With this situation in mind, and
in light of the upcoming two month anniversary since
the assassination of Jesus Leon and Guillermo Toledo,
we decided that we were going to go to Caracas on
foot.</p>
<p>We began walking on July 12 and along the way we
found tremendous solidarity from the very poor people
living by the side of the road. But also enormous
barriers and hurdles were set up by government
institutions: they made parallel “campesino” marches,
broke promises, and launched smear campaigns.</p>
<p>From that point forward, the story is well known. We
walked more than 400 kilometers from Guanare in
Portuguesa State, and along the way campesinos from
different regions of the country joined us, while
humble people living by the side of the road gave us
water and shelter.</p>
<p>Eventually we were joined by Reyes Parra, a campesino
leader from Barinas State, from the “La Escondida”
campesino homestead, a place where we had done an
assembly with more than 300 campesinos days before the
beginning of the march. His truck carried the water
needed to keep us walking. After a while, he went back
home to fix his truck, which had some problems.
Immediately upon his return to the homestead, Reyes
Parra was killed. But we were not going to give up!</p>
<p>We continued, and as we went on with our march, we
met with campesinos, workers, social movements.
Everybody who we found along the way gave us the
strength to continue! People gave us shelter, water,
food. The alternative media committed to covering the
march, to make up for the blackout from the state
media, which censored all coverage.</p>
<p>We continued to advance, and in Valencia the column
began to grow very quickly. Many more people from
around the country joined us and our voice was now
being heard loud and clear not only through
alternative media, but also through social media which
began to come to our side.</p>
<p>We arrived in Caracas on August 1, and social
movements received us with warmth and solidarity. That
was very moving! We walked towards Miraflores and
found all sorts of hurdles along the way, but
eventually <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13975">we
were able to talk to President Maduro</a>.</p>
<p>So what triggered our march? The terrible situation
of campesinos whose voices need to be heard. And it
should be known that the problems remain, and that is
why we have not left Caracas. We will stay here until
there is clear evidence that solutions to the
campesinos’ problems are on the way.</p>
<p><strong>What you call the Bolivarian Campesino Agenda
brings together the grievances and requests of the </strong><strong>campesino</strong><strong>
sector. How does this agenda develop?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Gerardo </strong><strong>Sieveres</strong><strong>:
</strong>For us, the Campesino March was a school. We
began our long journey because of the problems in the
farmsteads: the problem of the criminalization and
judicial persecution of campesinos. We walked to call
for an end to campesino assassinations and to impunity
and finally to bring to the public eye the need to
regularize land tenure. We also marched to demand
access to agricultural supplies.</p>
<p>In the 23 days that it took us to reach Caracas, we
engaged in a permanent conversation and debate. In
every stopping place we debated; during the long walks
we talked and analyzed; at night, after the long day,
we reflected. Thus we began to make our demands more
precise. Our demands began to include issues like the
decentralization of Agropatria and Pedro Camejo [state
company for agricultural production]. In the debate
some would say, “No, those are actually
decentralized,” and we would say “Yes, but we want
them to be independent of the government, because the
Agriculture Ministry is incapable of responding to our
needs.”</p>
<p>After hearing our demands, the president committed
himself to addressing (and finding solutions for)
problems in five areas: land, production, justice,
public services [institutional problems], and
organization. In that meeting, he ordered, in a very
emphatic manner, that the lands given to campesinos in
Hugo Chavez’s government be given back to them.</p>
<p>After that, work tables were set up, but frankly for
a long time, not much happened.</p>
<p><strong>Let’s move to the main points in the
Bolivarian Campesino Agenda: the synthesis of
proposals that come out of assemblies, debates </strong><strong>and</strong><strong>
conversations before, during and after the Admirable
Campesino March.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Gerardo Sieveres:</strong> The first item in
the agenda is “Land and New Territories.” Here we are
talking about safeguarding the campesino population
and its right to produce in the territory. Basically,
we want to address the campesino population's
integrity and right to organize. We are talking about
establishing a network of all campesino farmsteads
with a view toward creating integrated “Campesino
Development Zones.” If we are able to unite campesino
farmsteads, we will be safer and more efficient. All
this, obviously, goes hand in hand with the issue of
assigning tenancy of unused lands.</p>
<p>We have a singer and songwriter in Venezuela, Ali
Primera, who is really a universal artist. In one of
his songs he says that the people [pueblo] should be
like a dried cow skin: when someone steps on a dried
cowskin, the opposite end will rise up. That is what
we understand as “campesino territoriality”: an
integrated space for our struggles, but also with the
long-term aim of establishing an economic campesino
system. This economic system that would extend from
the field to the stewpot. We are thus talking about
having real power, about ensuring sovereign production
and the satisfaction of basic food needs.</p>
<p>So this new territoriality is based on a productive
model. And what is our model? Our productive model is
the idea of “agricultural socialism,” basically
Chavez’s proposal… which has, surprisingly, been
abandoned. Really, nobody talks about his model!</p>
<p>The productive model that Chavez proposed is based on
processes of collective “recovery” of the land and
socially-oriented production, with all its
implications. We, the campesinos, with the right
granted by Chavez to produce in the land, we must
produce to satisfy collective, social needs.</p>
<p>This brings us to the second point in our agenda,
which is “Strategic Production.”</p>
<p>To understand this we have to go back in history.
After the massacre of indigenous populations with the
arrival of the Spanish colonists, a new culture
emerged: the mestizo culture. Mestizo culture results
from the mixing of the indigenous peoples with the
colonizers. That is how our campesino culture emerges.</p>
<p>We have a long historical and genetic baggage of
colonization, but we also have the historical and
genetic baggage of indigenous rebelliousness, of
liberty and of resistance. Thus we arrive at the issue
of recovering our roots. Campesino production happens
in the periphery, in less inhabited territories, in
the more isolated places; campesino production is
resistance production, but it is also sovereign
production. In these isolated areas, we have the
wherewithal to produce and satisfy social needs.</p>
<p>So when we talk about “strategic production,” we are
talking about producing in a planned process to
satisfy the needs of people, who are facing a profound
crisis and the threat of imperialism, which wants to
take what is ours.</p>
<p>So “strategic production” means organizing and
planning the crops of cassava, yam, plantain, and
corn: producing to satisfy the Venezuelan people's
basic needs.</p>
<p>The third item is “Integral and Structured Justice of
the Countryside.” Our proposal is that, given the
justice system's inability to respond to the
campesino's collective needs, a process of juridical
self-protection should be implanted. We have to review
the existing laws in this regard; for instance, the
law recognizes the figure of the justice of peace in
the barrio. Thus, we are proposing to build “peace
courtrooms” at the local level, in the rural
territories. In this system, the judge, hearing
charges against a landowner who had a campesino
killed, would be a fellow campesino, his peer.</p>
<p>This is very important, because the truth is that
certain sectors of the government are using the
judicial system to criminalize campesinos, to
dispossess campesinos of their land. How do they do
this? They make false allegations and eventually open
legal cases.</p>
<p>For instance, on social media, government
spokespeople are making false claims against us,
saying that Arbonio burned a school... thus Arbonio
should be put in jail because he is a threat to
society! Why, because he is a thorn in the side of a
power group that has nothing to do with the aims of
the revolution. There is another person from the
Campesino March who is being called a terrorist on
social media, or myself, a humble campesino – now in
social media some are claiming that I’m selling land!
All these baseless claims are made on social media to
threaten us. Basically, they are threatening to with
press charges that would be founded on rumors that
they have planted. They are, in essence, cooking up
judicial “false positives.” They do similar things
with landless campesinos who occupy unproductive land.</p>
<p>So, when we talk about Structured Campesino Justice,
we are talking about a system that bypasses the
current, corrupt judicial system which doesn’t want to
be reformed… We are talking about establishing a model
for and by campesinos, a system that will ensure
justice and peace in the countryside. It’s the only
way really. We [campesinos] are the only ones who know
our reality.</p>
<p>All this must go hand in hand with the development of
a campesino militia. The objective of this militia
would be to protect our territory when facing the
brutal landowner's threats, the narcoviolence of those
who want to build drug corridors, or the new agrarian
bourgeoisie's aggressions.</p>
<p>So those are the three main lines of our struggle...</p>
<p><strong>Obviously, all this must happen hand in hand
with a profound reform, or even a revolution, within
the existing institutions.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Gerardo Sieveres: </strong>That is certainly
the case. One thing that is important to underline is
that when we met with President Maduro, he talked
about the need to reform the government’s agricultural
institutions. In this regard, what we say is that
while the institutions must change, more than changing
directors, we must strive to change their modus
operandi, their internal logic.</p>
<p>And this brings us to Enrique Dussel’s recent visit
and the founding of a Decolonization Institute. The
truth is that our institutions are colonized by an
“anti-people” logic. The first thing that must be
decolonized in Venezuela is power, the power which
resides in state institutions. The colonial behavior
that operates in institutions must be eradicated. So
let’s decolonize institutions!</p>
<p>We have seen the development of a “despotic
patrimonial” logic colonizing institutions in the
recent past, and it must end. This is the colonised
practice that currently inhabits institutions. We say
that institutions operate now in a despotic
patrimonial manner because these spaces employ a
deeply despotic logic. From the bottom to the top,
there is disregard for the law, and they do with the
patrimony as they wish. What should be done with this
despotic patrimonialism in state institutions? Well,
the state institutions must be decolonized,
eliminating these practices.</p>
<p><strong>I assume that when you talk about “despotic
patrimonialism,” you refer to the practices
associated with the emerging landowning bourgeoisie,
the so-called “revolutionary bourgeoisie”[2]?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Gerardo Sieveres:</strong> Let’s explain this
in three historical phases.</p>
<p>The historical struggle of campesinos has been
against whom? First, we struggled against the feudal
lord. Then there is a second moment in which we had
(and still have) a very intense struggle against the
oppressing landowning class. But additionally, we are
now struggling against the despotic patrimonialists of
the “revolutionary bourgeoisie.” They are the ones
behind the terrible functioning of public
institutions. That is the first block that must be
overcome in decolonizing institutions with the new
institute that President Maduro formed. He is our
president, and we trust that he will take the right
path in this regard.</p>
<p><strong>What is next?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Gerardo Sieveres:</strong> We must defend
with all of our strength President Nicolas Maduro. He
entrusted his word to us, he committed himself to
solving the campesino bloc's problems. Thus, those
committed to Chavismo, with our decision to follow
Chavez’s path clear as the full moon[3], we are
committed to our president and his word. The
commitment he made to us is a brake against the
revolutionary bourgeoisie's logic of despotic
patrimonialism, which is a cancer inside institutions
that tends to take Chavez's project out of the
picture. That bourgeoisie is breaking the moral
backbone of our process. But the moral objectives
cannot be broken, and we count on President Maduro for
that! The rural and urban youth, all who have
accompanied us, all revolutionaries, the social
movements, we must all walk together towards
reinstating Chavez’s vision.</p>
<h2>Notes</h2>
<p>[1] A recovered farmstead is a plot of unused land
claimed and occupied by landless campesinos. The 2001
<a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5432">Land
and Agricultural Development Law</a> laid out the
basis of the agrarian revolution and created the legal
framework for granting landless campesinos the right
(and conditions) for producing.</p>
<p>[2] Revolutionary bourgeoisie is a term used by
Venezuelan Agricultural Minister Wilmar Castro Soteldo
which generated a large controversy within Chavismo,
as it was interpreted as a defense of the emerging
bourgeoisie.</p>
<p>[3] As Chávez’s cancer worsened, he named Maduro his
choice in a possible electoral contest. “My firm
opinion, as clear as the full moon – irrevocable,
absolute, total – is… that you elect Nicolas Maduro as
president,” he said in a dramatic, final speech in
December 2012.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://freedomarchives.org/">https://freedomarchives.org/</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>