As you’ve probably all heard by now, the referendum for constitutional reform in Venezuela (see previous post for far more detail) came out in a surprising “No”, albeit an incredibly slim one. Looking at the numbers alone, it seems like about half of Chavez’s usual supporters abstained.
The right-wing propaganda offensive (including, in this instance, the Guardian and the BBC with their hysterical references to 2050) probably did succeed in muddying the waters a bit, but there was nothing particularly original about it and I think we have to lay the blame at Chavez’s own door. At the very least, serious strategic mistakes were made.
I’m the biggest Chavista on the block (probably; I haven’t done a survey or anything), and I – like the majority of Venezuelan people – fully support the country’s progress towards socialism. However, this was a long list of often contradictory amendments (again, see previous post); I sympathise with the abstainers who would have supported some, opposed some others, and been confused as to the point of the rest. Lumping these amendments in one yes/no question is the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from certain EU member states (certain other EU member states, like the UK, don’t bother asking at all).
To go further, Chavez and his supporters need to rediscover the spirit of the 1999 Constitution. That was drawn up in an extremely – unprecedentedly, as far as I can tell – democratic and consultative process, and by the time of the vote to ratify it everyone had had due input on what they were ratifying. Now, there’s no sense in going through that laborious process for every amendment, but the people do need to be better consulted on changes to the constitution. Smaller, more focused sets of reforms could be put forward, debated, and won on their merits.
I feel confident that this setback won’t hurt the Bolivarian revolution too badly, in and of itself. The process for deepening participatory democracy has popular support and can go further, up to a point, without the requirement for constitional amendments, as does the trend towards economic sovereignity. Talk of finding a successor seems premature too; there’s time between now and 2013 for a better, more sincere referendum to allow Chavez to stand again (arbitrarily precluding him when the vast majority of Venezuelans would still vote for him would, of course, be an absurd perversion of democracy).
However, this will give confidence to the rightwing opposition to Chavez, a vicious lot who’ve shown their taste for violence and their contempt for the people time and time again. Chavez’s failure removed the need to implement the more extreme elements of Operation Pliers, but if there’s no sense in the revolutionaries stopping here then nor is there any reason for the reactionaries to do so either. We must remain vigilant.
Still, Chavez isn’t the only one experiencing setbacks. An intelligence report that Cheney had delayed for a year, to make time for the most anti-Iranian propaganda, just undermined him completely by confirming that Iran has no active nuclear weapons programme. This won’t stop the march to war, but it should at least slow it reet down.
Latest Comments