what happened?
I don’t think that I have ever felt so physically and mentally exhausted. Physically, because I sleep on a mattress on the floor of the living room and the comrades in the flat went to bed an hour ago. They had been up until 6.30am playing music and writing articles on the computer trying to analyse the results of the referendum, so sleep was constantly interrupted. Emotionally, because today I leave Caracas for Quito in Ecuador and the past 28 days here have been an emotional roller-coaster ending up in a massive crash.
What happened? When we started the blog, the signs were that the results were going to be close. The opposition was mobilising and was making inroads into areas of support, workers and people of colour, that they had never had before. Some ultra left trade union leaders like Chirinos were also calling for a No vote and therefore sowing confusion amongst some sections of workers. The pro Chavez campaign was music, songs, red flags and the handing out glossy material as if that was all to the campaign. It was devoid of content that explained. I have said all of this in previous blogs.
And then came the euphoria of the pro Chavez rally and we got carried away with the show of strength on the streets. I predicted an even greater winning margin for Chavez yet the reality on the day was that the opposition forces mobilised and Chavez’s support fell by more than 3 million compared to the presidential elections of a year ago. I should have taken more notice of the words of one of the leaders of the 23 de Enero barrio, a man called Carlos, when he said that people will turn out for the presidential elections but not for constitutional reform matters. In other words they will turn out when Chavez’s position is at stake.
As the delay from in the announcement of the results by the National Electoral Council went on into the early hours of the morning we knew that something serious was going on. Chavez had promised to resign if the proposals were rejected. Was he preparing his resignation speech?
When he did appear and spoke of the willingness of people to engage in democratic voting systems, we knew that he had lost and that the proposals for constitutional change would be shelved, POR AHORA, for now. Yet he did not resign. He still has another 5 years as president and although the changes to the constitution would have taken the revolution forward ON PAPER, the fact is that at the moment the process of the revolution is deepening on the streets, in the barrios and in the workplaces.
This will be a setback for Chavez’s supporters. And Chavez himself will now come under terrific pressure from some of is own so-called supporters in the state bureaucracy who will advocate a slowing down of the changes and an accommodation, a reconciliation with the opposition. But how in a relatively backward capitalist country like Venezuela, where the bourgeoisie is tied by a thousand threads to the interests of multinational conglomerates and imperialism and is therefore incapable of taking Venezuelan society forward, can you have a reconciliation between the forces of capital and the forces of labour? SUCH A RECONCILIATION WOULD BE AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL THE REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AS THE BOURGEOISIE SEEKS TO RECOVER ITS DOMINANCE IN THIS COUNTRY.
Will Chavez be able to resist these pressures? If he relies only on the state bureaucracy, no. If he now mobilises the ranks of the Socialist Party and encourages the setting up of councils in the workplaces, on the land, in the universities and barrios, and brings these councils together at local, regional and national level as alternative organs of power, then he will have a solid social and political base to carry through reforms not on paper but with the living forces of the working class, the peasantry, the marginalised sectors and the students.
We have always said that constitutions are bits of paper that reflect the balance of forces at any given moment. The real battle will be between living people outside the realms of assemblies and parliaments. Yes, the result is a setback, but only that. It is not a defeat. Many battles have been won by the Bolivarian Revolution in this war, this battle was lost. The war however continues, and has to continue, because capitalism can offer nothing to the people of Venezuela and Latin America.
A starting point in the counter attack must be the war on economic sabotage, the withholding of products from supermarkets by capitalist firms. If people have the food that they need, the basis of support can be rebuilt. The next point of attack must be to take on the state bureaucracy to weed out those who are deliberately sabotaging the pace of existing reforms and to attack head on the corruption that exists. These two measures alone IN DEEDS will do far more to reactivate the basis of Chavez’s support than ALL THE WORDS that have been spoken about the need to move towards socialism.
Darrall Cozens
Caracas
December 3rd 2007
8.15am
Filed under: Uncategorized
This is undoubtedly a huge blow for the revolution. From limited information I can only speculate as to the reasons for defeat, but the following points stand out:
1) We mustn’t rule out some kind of electoral fraud (perpetuated by sections of the state bureaucracy); although at the moment I don’t think this is the most likely explanation, the next few days will reveal whether it has in fact taken place.
2) Assuming the results are fair, the ‘no’ voters scarcely increased their numbers from previous referenda/elections (they represent the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, well-paid professionals, students from such families, etc.), and are fairly constant. The big change was the abstention rate, with nearly 45% failing to vote. This means that a large section of the Bolivarian movement hasn’t supported the constitutional changes.
3) ‘Defectors’ such as Baduel are a red-herring, since they still represent the old state and it was only a matter of time before the revolution would become too radical for them. However, there were splits within the workers’ movement itself. For example, the UNT took an ultra-left position to Chavez, resulting in one of their leaders coming out against factory occupations! Chavez still has the support of the majority of the workers, though.
4) The factory occupations movement (representing one of the most advanced points in the movement) is only in its infancy, and is as such vulnerable. In any working-class movement, different sections have different levels of conciousness. This may explain the divisions, reformism and ultra-leftism in the movement.
5) The counter-revolutionaries will undoubtedly be emboldened by this. There will likely be violent reaction, directed by the US, possibly in the form of incursions from Columbia, or a coup. The movement may sadly be forced into a defencive position, increasing the chance of its defeat.
All-in-all, this is a sad day. Whilst this defeat highlights the weakness of the revolutionary movement (which will be possibly fatally exploited by US imperialism and its minions), the only thing revolutionaries in Venezuela can do is to strengthen the most advanced part of the revolution, namely the factory occupations. If the revolution is to be salvaged, the occupations movement must play a leading role. Discussions must centre around how to make this happen.
One thing to note in “retail” politics. Prevalence of signs and big rally attendance have nothing to do with the final result. Rallies are held to boost the morale of party workers. They have no further effect.
MARX WAS RIGHT.
SOCIALIST REVOLUTION MUST BEGIN IN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, NOT IN UNDERDEVELOP AND BACKWARD CAPITALIST ECONOMIES.
Thanks to Darrall for his tireless reports and analysis from Venezuela. It has bin absolutely refreshing to get a taste of the events taking place, the feelings of the human beings involved in this marvellous revolutionary process.
Surely this setback can feel a bit desillusioning for a lot of activists across the world. But let us remember, that a revolution is not a process that advances in a straight-forward manner, but rather a complicated, complex situation, where different social forces see themselves pushed in different directions and reaching definite conclusions, as the situation develops.
As a matter of fact, many revolutions have seen periods of lull, of tiredness - even of reaction. Remember that the Spanish Revolution from 1931-39 also had a short interval (1933-35), with reaction and apathy among some sectors. The “black years”. That did not prevent the working class from taking up arms to defeat the fascists and defend the revolution.
I think that the results of the referendum, will not in anyway serve as a reciept for “stability” or “normality” in Venezuela. Rather, I think it will create more contradictions and divisions inside chavismo, where a number of bureaucrats will argue in favour of “recouncillation”. This will inevitably shock head-on with the desire of the masses for the completing of the socialist revolution
It seems to me that perhaps some of the old, small, opportunist parties of the former Chavista galaxy (those who refused to join the PSUV) retain some influence locally and were able to sow division. I think it’s only a matter of time before they become empty shells just like the former giants AD and Copei… but it’s possible that they’re still a little bit alive for now.
Chavez just became to full of himself. Even loyal followers expect some humility occasionally. As long as oil prices remain high, he will be popular but the people aren’t going to annoint him God.
There is another theory:
Perhaps the masses dared to defy your wishes and dreamed of a country withut a President for life. Perhaps they wnat it about as badly as you’d prefer a President Bush without limits of terms in office.
Perhaps the masses dared to hope of a military devoid of politicization. Instead, they continue to march with official chants of: “Homeland, Socialism, or Death!”. Can you imagine soldiers of the West marching with “Capitalism or Death!”. Atrocious politicization.
Perhaps the people wanted some autonomy attached to the Central Bank again, instead of being tied to Hugo.
Perhaps the people dared to wish for a litle more separation than currently exists between state and judiciary, now that Hugo has stacked the benches.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
Perhaps “Craig M” will explain us why he is scared about “president for lifetime”? A theme that all bourgeois newspapers are echoing. Someone can only get president, if he or she is ELECTED by the people! Remember, that in Europe, there is no limit on how many times you can be prime minister, in any country I know of.
So what’s the problem? Perhaps YOU are scared, that Chávez might win against the right-wing in future elections, because he puts forward left-wing ideas?
Patrick says it all. In how many countries are there limits to the number of times that you can stand for the highest office? In the UK you can stand as often as you want. The decision on being elected is not in the hands of the candidate but the electorate. Who elected the UK head of state, the Queen? Who elected Juan Carlos in Spain who told Chavez to shut up? Nobody! He was nominated by a fascist dictator, Franco! As for the army being politicised, Craig has to remember that the armed forces under capitalism are there to protect the status quo in society and that means protecting the interests of those who stand at the top of society. Without a politicised army there is no chance of changing society. The lower ranks in Venezuela are with Chavez against poverty and hunger. The top brass are split between the opposition and their jobs and careers.
Darrall Cozens
As much as I hate GW Bush, I don’t think that the term limit he’s going to reach is democratic. If the US are to get rid of him, it would be much better if it was as the result of a democratic vote, rather that for a legal-technical reason like this.