* The August 2004 elections legitimized Hugo Chávez's presidency, approved by the multinational powers-that-be, despite the opposition's claims of electoral fraud. We, at El Libertario (issue 39, September/October 2004), presented an indepth analysis of the consecuences of the referendum, as well as proposals for action in the new circumstances. We shall now quote a couple of notes from that issue that express the essence of the venezuelan anarchists' perspective.
º Editorial
Social movements must tear down every wall blocking their autonomy. From the viewpoint of the leaders of the two opposing camps (the officialist, under Hugo Chávez, and the so-called Coordinadora Democrática), people's participation and bottom-up democracy are mere slogans without any basis in reality. These leaders prove once and again that, in order to remain in charge and accumulate more power, they are willing to do any kind of behind-closed-doors deal, as well as performing any political juggling necessary to channel the citizens' anger towards their own benefit.
Autonomy means everybody being capable of self-determination, able to establish their own dynamics and pursuing their own concrete goals. The self-proclaimed leaders know perfectly well that their living depends upon turning their own affairs into general interest issues. They present themselves before their constituencies as guarantors of their aspirations, which will be realised in an hypothetical future if, and only if, they are appointed as their bosses. But they never deliver, no matter their colors. For these politicians, the only thing that really matters is to perpetuate their own positions of power.
The current levels of poverty, unemployment, street violence and general ills are not going away without a deep structural change. Anything less is mere crumbs falling from the table of those who talk about "revolution" while pocketing millions. One alternative: to break up completely with the pseudo-leaderships old and new, and for the excluded and oppressed of any color to build our own paths. To create new organizations, horizontal and non-hierarchical spaces, where nobody speaks in the name of anyone else, as well as being the foundations for building a new kind of life and resist to the old one. As free-thinking individuals, we go against the tide of the established ideas and practices born out of false consensus and blackmail, deepening our
experiences through socialization and self-teaching. These spaces shall recover our best traditions of citizenship, participation and solidarity, and build a really alternative culture, one which takes into account every side of the human being.
Let's turn a deaf ear to the sirens' wails; their power is built upon lies. When they talk about "civil society against dictatorship", they are planning to occupy future ministries and governorships. When they decry against "imperialism" and "oligarchy", they are giving away the countrys' wealth to the multinationals in the privacy of five star hotels. When they propose to create "emergency programs against poverty", it is because they will not change the social structure that creates it, since it brings huge profits to them. They only call to "participation" when they need our votes. When they call to "unity" and "reconciliation" it is because they want to shut us up and reduce us to passivity.
No politician does your work; let no one make your decisions. From the diversity of common practices shall be born the community of multiple, limitless forms of association with which we shall fight every form of domination. To weave a dense social fabric, is incompatible with warlords, politicos, militarists and demagogues of all colors. Shedding out every kind of dependency, we exercise our potential for autonomy. Anything less than that would mean to remain forever under the thumbs of those who profit upon our miseries.
º Revocatory Referendum: Power's "Reality Show"
The August 2004 electoral circus was intended to perpetuate the lies that the media, both state-owned and private, had presented to us, ratified by the officialists and the "opposition" before public opinion. All venezuelan people were the spectators; they swindled us, making us choose between a "Yes" and "No" about an individual, as if this would solve our collective problems. That the event would end up in fraud was predictable. Not because the losers claim it, or because the process could be manipulated for one cause or another; but, because the real fraud are the so-called differences between the government and the opposition, just like the referendum itself is a swindle when it comes about solving poverty, the militarization of society, or the slow process of giving away the country to the multinationals. The high costs of this election circus, contrasted with the realities of health, environment, education and well-being of the population confirms it.
Social problems cannot be solved from the heights of power, nor by the economically privileged, but by society itself. Power can only be used to regulate misery, and legalize inequality. It dominates, imposes a single criterion, while at the same time keeping an ambiguous and absolutist discourse, denying any glimmer of freedom. It doesn't know any other logic. It doesn't like plurality. The Coordinadora Democrática gave multiple proof of that in the past, and the unseen players who finance it are still doing it in the present. These beggars of power have lost every right to speak in the name of a people they don't represent. People have their own voice, and the responsibility to open up their own spaces, where they can exercise their autonomy through direct democracy, and in so doing to get their own voice and action. This means: to destroy authoritarianism everywhere it exists and to pursue their own well-being.
Both the exaltation of the military persona of Chávez and its ahistorical linking to that of Bolivar, is intended to legitimise neoliberal politics with demagogical words. They have also played up the "US Invasion" scare, an ironic prelude to this government's giving away of the country's oil to corporations like Chevron-Texaco or Repsol-YPF, paladins of capitalist globalisation. This revolution is being financed with money from the multinationals, from the very same imperialism that is supposedly out to invade us. It has learned to coexist with global power, as long as it pays "our price". Those very same groups enrich themselves in Venezuela, start the Puebla-Panama Plan against the Central America peoples, pollute and loot Ecuador, and finance the troops invading Irak or any other country they want to. All of it thanks to "our price", and the Venezuelan reserves guaranteeing to the US a good 17% of its oil consumption.
Latin America has to learn that language is not always what it seems; that "revolution" is an empty word in the mouth of people like Chávez, Lula or any other who speaks from the heights of Power. In this continent, that word has been used only to describe who is better at managing Capitalism. It is of vital importance to understand that a better future won't be given to us by the State, only organised society can confront it and open the way towards real change. We need to widen the debate, to listen to one another beyond the useless squabbles about Chávez. The libertarian movement must support and join this transformation, along with that 'people' son many talk about but nobody listens to. Our battle is against Power, in any guise it adopts. Neither "humane" national capitalism nor multinational capitalism; self-management is still our
theory, autonomy our practice. Going headlong against neoliberalism, inequality and authoritarianism, with direct action and mutual aid as our tools to build the possible utopia of freedom, equality and solidarity.
[For more and updated info & analysis, see the English section in El Libertario`s website]
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
...
13.10.2004 14:41
One could argue that anarchism taken to it's most extreme form would be neoliberal capitalism, where I can do whatever I like and exploit whoever I like, without the intervention of the state to stop me.
The problem has always been that states have been constructed to look out for the interests of a privelaged few. Or they have been constructed with good intentions, and then compromised. But I completely disagree that government is not essential. I can think of no examples in history where that has ever been done, because it's not sustainable. The native americans had chiefs. The Iroquis possessed democracy long before we did. The tribes would gather in caucuses and vote on issues. But within that system there were the chiefteins who would then make sure the peoples wishes were carried out.
That should be the role of government. The people whose profession is to make sure there are hospitals and schools, security, environmental controls, disaster relief. These things need to be organised otherwise they just don't happen. That organisation becomes a state in the larger scale.
I don't think there is anything wrong with power. But it is whether that power is given with the blessings of the people or whether it is tricked from the people. In most western governments, the 'leaders' do not have as much power as the multinational corporations and business interests that support them. Does that power come from the people? In Western history, power has either resided in people who take it through force of arms, or people who manipulate it through great wealth. But I don't think those are the only models available to us.
Here is an interesting article...
The Possible Faces of Venezuelan Democracy
Monday, Oct 11, 2004 Print format
Send by email
By: Jonah Gindin – Venezuelanalysis.com
In the eastside Caracas barrio of Petare, an elderly former guerrilla addresses his neighbours: “In the 1960s and 70s when we were fighting the government,” notes Renardo Tovar, “we had to create our own media of communication: clandestine newspapers, radio, barrio-newsletters. Now that we are part of the process and supported by the process, we have lost our creativity. We depend on existing media—Ultimas Noticias, Radio Nacional, Canal 8[1]—when the need is still great to create our own.”
An infamous epicentre of rebellion and politicization, Petare residents played a leading role in the caracazo—the popular uprising against the neoliberal policies of then President Carlos Andres Perez in February 1989. On April 12th, 2002, hours after a coup had (temporarily) toppled Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’ government, Petare residents stormed the state television station, bringing it back on the air to inform the country of the coup, rallying Chávez’ supporters to successfully demand his return.
Renardo Tovar is participating in a ‘popular assembly’, bringing community activists and social movement militants together to debate the ‘deepening of the revolution.’ Since Chávez’ declaration that the referendum victory inaugurates a new stage in the Bolívarian project, communities across the country have begun debating what the “revolution within the revolution” actually means.
After a year and a half thaw, popular power is once again stimulating popular consciousness in Venezuela. Since the campaign for recalling Chávez got under-way after the failed oil lock-out of 2002-03 the opposition shifted strategy from extra-legal attacks on Chávez (the 2002 coup, the lockout) to legal ones (the referendum). But with their defeat last August, the immediate threat to the Bolivarian revolution has—temporarily—been averted. As a result, Venezuela’s revolution has entered a new stage. Chávez calls it ‘deepening the revolution,’ but it is more than just his initiatives for ‘deepening’ at the level of the state. This new stage is characterized by a dialectical shift from the defensive politics that subordinated everything else to the defence of the revolution, to a return to the creative dialogue that Chávez’ proceso initially represented.
At this moment, as the splintered collection of anti-chavists represented by the Democratic Coordinator (CD)—unable to come to grips with their defeat—continues their self-immolation, dialogue and dissent have returned to debates within chavismo. The collective imagination that has been largely stagnant since the 2002 attempted-coup is once again finding spaces for expression. It is a moment for ‘deepening’, but it is also a moment for reflection, and for self-criticism.
Between a Friend and a Principle
With the upcoming regional elections as a further catalyst, communities are once-again demanding national forums for the articulation of community interests, and community-based struggles. Thus, a series of popular assemblies held in communities across the country to frame their position with respect to the regional elections: local-selected candidates (primaries) or conditional support for candidates selected from above? And thus a lively debate that is slowly emerging on the future of the Electoral Battle Units (UBEs) initially created as part of the chavista referendum campaign.
In response to increasing mobilization demanding primaries for regional candidates, Chávez’ position has been a surprise to many. Last month, he declared “We have already announced the candidates, and these are the candidates. Those who don’t want unity can join the escualidos (opposition).” Yet since these candidates were all appointed by a national committee dominated by the governing party, the 5th Republic Movement (MVR), the result has been fierce opposition in many communities who are demanding that the government act in accordance with its participatory rhetoric.
While many in the interior continue to press for primaries, Caracas seems to have come to a consensus. Recognizing the time constraints with the October 31st date of the regional elections looming, three of Caracas largest working-class districts have chosen conditions over primaries.
Yet the anger that this contradiction in the governments position has sparked remains. As the April 13th Movement, spawned during the mobilization on April 13th 2002 that resulted in the reversal of the coup against Chávez, argues: “We either make revolution, or we face destruction by the counterrevolution…this is the ethical dilemma cited by Chávez when he makes us chose between a friend and a principal.”
Rhetoric and Practice: Local Autonomy, Community-based Power
In a series of independently organized popular assemblies held in the Caracas barrios of El Valle, Petare, and Catia the focus was on declaring publicly and collectively the changes that they expect to see after chavista victory in their states and municipalities, no matter the candidate. To this end community members participating in the popular assemblies drew up manifestos that were subsequently sent to candidates at the municipal and state levels, and to Chávez.
In a manifesto published by various independent media outlets via internet, the Left Revolutionary Option (OIR) declared: whoever the candidates are, “the upcoming regional elections cannot be a new electoral event, nor a media-show without content or political perspectives…On the contrary, they must be a continuation of the struggle against imperialism and against the Venezuelan oligarchy. They must be an opportunity to debate ideas, suggestions, programs, and concrete plans of action that provide answers to the most urgent needs of the workers and the people.”
Manifestos drafted by these popular assemblies include provisions for the improvement of a diverse range of community rights and services. One focus for all three assemblies was the idea of local public planning councils. Last spring the organic law of Local Public Planning Councils was passed, yet these potentially key institutions of participatory democracy so close to the heart of the Bolivarian project have yet to be implemented.
Subordinated to facing the direct threat to the revolution that the referendum represented, the local public planning councils have returned to the forefront of the debate in many communities. They represent a Venezuelan version of the participatory budget experimented with in Porto Alegre, Brazil. According to Conexion-Social (Social-Connection), a nation-wide forum for community activists and social movements, the public planning council law is plagued by difficulties. Yet their implementation is the first step in addressing and eventually rectifying these potential problems.
As Pedro Infante, director of the National Coordination of Popular Organizations points out, the law was changed before being passed in the National Assembly. “Deputies to the National Assembly often do not consult their base on the laws they pass. But we as organized communities are not pressuring them sufficiently to do so. We are organized, but we are dispersed.”
Last weekend in 23 de Enero[2], another vibrant center of revolutionary activity, neighbours and activists held a ‘popular assembly’ with the express aim of defining their community’s autonomy. Not content to wait for the national government to fix the existing legislation for local power structures, community-members took the initiative and explicitly stated the need for the creation of a self-sufficient local governing body inexorably rooted in, and directly accessible and accountable to, the community.
Small Steps: Internal Limits and Contradictions
Despite the continuing—and in fact increased—dynamism of Venezuela’s experiment in revolution, the process remains a gradual one, and it is one plagued by difficulties stemming from within as well as without. Whatever the external limitations imposed upon a third world Latin American country—even an oil country—internal limitations represent as much of a potential barrier to the development of the Bolivarian project.
Venezuela’s opposition succeeded in temporarily subverting the democratic project of the Bolivarian revolution by forcing the last one and a half years to be dominated by exercises in representative democracy. But the strength of the Bolivarian project has been its articulation of an alternative model of democracy. This has been one of the few areas in which Venezuela has been able to advance on its own. Lacking a regional movement dedicated to opposing neoliberalism it is difficult for Venezuela to do so alone, without isolating itself in an artificial, and likely short-lived socialist bubble.[3]
Depending as it does on oil wealth, Venezuela has the advantage of a certain autonomy from global capital in the sense that it does not depend as heavily on foreign lending institutions and can finance its development projects independently. Yet this autonomy is also the firmest guarantee of Venezuela’s continuing integration into the global economy. Oil wealth is of no use to the Bolivarian revolution if it cannot be sold on the world market. As a recent article in the Economist commented: “Chávez…has a grandiose scheme, called Petroamérica, for a Latin American energy conglomerate based on an alliance of state oil companies. Argentina's president, Néstor Kirchner, has shown interest. Brazil is less keen. But, for now, the Bolivarian revolution rests firmly on the shoulders of the foreign oil giants.” Even south-south trade relations pursued by Chávez have not effected significantly Venezuela’s dependence on the US market.
Compounding these difficulties, and intricately related to them, is the hesitancy of the V Republic to shed the vestiges of the IV Republic once and for all.[4] After 6 years of ‘revolution’ and a new constitution, the Venezuelan state has too much in common with the very un-revolutionary Venezuelan state that kept the country mired in the corrupt selective distribution of oil wealth from 1958-1998.
Politically the transition from representative to participatory democracy has proceeded at a painfully slow rate. Economically, the government has often proven reluctant to act in accordance with its own revolutionary rhetoric. The few currently-existing examples of co-management in Venezuelan factories have so far failed to concretely improve the lot of the workers in question, and examples of self-management do not yet exist. Culturally the revolution has seen some impressive advances, though largely limited to education.
Yet even the promise of the educational misiones, providing free and accessible education from basic literacy to university, raises questions of sustainability. Opposition critiques that Chávez is able to maintain the misiones solely due to record-breaking oil prices is probably exaggerated, but it represents a very real concern. Former Minister of Higher Education Hector Navarro has called for the ‘municipalization’ of higher education as a means of institutionalizing the universal right to higher education. Yet this would require a concurrent ‘municipalization’ of state resources and power structures, something that has yet to happen to a significant degree.
What has kept the revolutionary process going despite these barriers is the genuine cooperation between Chávez’ leadership and the Venezuelan people, represented by political mobilization. “Compared to Venezuela’s past,” notes Infante, “the Bolivarian project’s politicization of the people is clear. Whereas previously, social exclusion was a government policy, now social inclusion is a constitutional right.”
Practice and Ideology
In a recent press release Chávez referred to the philosophical responsibilities of the current juncture. “As Victor Hugo pointed out in Les Miserables,” he noted “we had abolished the ancién regime in effect, but we had not been able to abolish it in our ideas.” We must “transform the ancién regime not only in actions, but in ideas,” continued Chávez. “If we don’t, it will come back to haunt us, against our children tomorrow and will once again install the old ideas of egotism, individualism, the exploitation of some by others, the degeneration of man, as Víctor Hugo said, the degredation of women and the atrophy of children for want of knowledge.”
As the only community-based organizations that bring together chavista activists from all sectors of Bolivarian society, the UBEs have a unique potential to evolve into a national forum capable of providing a voice for community interests that act not only as a consultative body, but as an active partner in government. Currently Chávez has no adequate mechanism for consulting the nation on state decisions. The National Assembly is seen as inefficient and ineffective by many Venezuelans. Regular referendums on specific issues would be too impractical, and would run the risk of desensitizing the population to electoral politics. If a national forum existed with representatives from community UBEs, who were elected, and who were completely accountable to their base (perhaps through a system of constant reporting and dialogue, buttressed by short rotating terms) it would provide a body with which Chávez could be forced to consult regularly, and effectively.
Yet so far the UBEs have been a tool of the governing party, the MVR. They do not have any democratic structure, created as they were specifically to facilitate the ‘No’ (against the recall) campaign leading up to the referendum. The future of the UBEs will likely be decided by the communities across the country in which the UBEs are mobilizing and from which they draw their membership. And these communities have made their distaste for appointments from above abundantly clear.
As Chilean writer and activist Marta Harnecker notes in a preliminary version of a paper on the need for a wide political font, it “should not be a political organization decreed from above without taking into consideration the base. In many cases, the leaders of the Bolivarian forces are not the real leaders of their respective sectors, distancing the base and forcing them to find other forms of organization.”[5]
If the UBEs are to remain relevant, and especially if they are to be converted into Social Battle Units (UBSs), forming the base for a nation-wide participatory forum, it will be due to grassroots initiatives. As Harnecker notes, “It should be an organization in which exist mechanisms of control of its leaders by the base.” And the primary focus of this base after the regional elections will be concrete advances in participatory structures such as the local planning councils. Whether the government facilitates this project or tries to block it will be a crucial test of their willingness to put rhetoric into practice and to dilute their own power in the interests of further empowering the Venezuelan people.
Back in Petare, William Yaguaran, an army reservist who teaches history in Caracas’ poor barrios, refers to the importance of “peoples’ participation in constructing their own histories.” If the history of the Bolivarian revolution is to be written by the Venezuelan people, it must continue to be what ex-minister of Higher Education Hector Navarro describes as “a process of learning to do, and learning by doing—a process of building learning, by doing learning.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ultimas Noticias is Venezuela’s largest circulating daily newspaper, and perhaps the only one that manages to maintain some semblance of political balance in its coverage; Radio Nacional is the official government radio station; Channel 8 (Venezolana de Television—VTV) is the state television channel.
[2] The neighbourhood is named after January 23rd, 1958—the date that Venezuelan dictator Peréz Jiménez was overthrown. Built during Jiménez’ dictatorship, its original name was Urbanizacion 2 de Deciembre.
[3] The importance of Venezuela as a source of oil for the US market is what would ensure such a socialist-bubbles short life.
[4] The Fourth Republic refers to the period between 1961 and 1999, before Chavez became president. The Fifth Republic, refers to the period after 1999, when the new constitution was approved.
[5] “Ideas para Frente Nacional,” August 26, 2004.
Hermes
Difficulties
13.10.2004 23:08
I can see why it is easy to hate the government when living in a country dominated by the image of one leader who conrols internal dissent to the max, but imagine having Thatcher as a virtual leader - or her child-prodige Blair, or a Pinochet for example. Keep up the struggle - your ideas will inform others and put pressure for change from below! For Freedom and Communism!
confused?