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.
Tariq Ali’s own prejudices sometimes cloud his judgement on his native Pakistan, but his analysis of the referendum defeat is spot on, for my money.
So, where next? Most of the changes can be pushed forward without constitutional change, but the necessary removal of term limits will require a referendum. I’d also advocate a referendum on the formal inclusion of socialism in the constitution, something that’s not strictly legally necessary, but it would be very likely to win, and to set off debate about politics rather than leaving room for propaganda and innuendo. The most important thing to remember is that a revolution led by Chavez at the top will lack both the strength and the legitimacy of one led from the bottom by the working class. As 2002 showed, there is definite potential for this in Venezuela, and many of Chavez’s reforms would have strengthened it, but democracy isn’t just about a system – it relies on keeping the people engaged, and a referendum of the type we’ve just seen isn’t the way to go about it. Still, the Bolivarians have recovered from much worse than this.
Our country (the United States) is run by modern organized crime; Corporate influence.
England estimates organized crime costs their citizens more than $20 Billion pounds (~40 Billion US) annually; a large part of that being politically based. The US has 1,000 times more cash flow than England; much of it hidden.
If the following could work in the US, could it work in Venezuala?
Ethical Method to Eliminate ALL Political Corruption:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn?p=57
Well James, you’re right to be concerned about the NSA, and about sinister interests manipulating government, but I think you’re going to have dig a little deeper than that. Who would select your “Ethical Commitee”? How would it be accountable, and to whom? How would it enforce its rulings?
Back on topic, see here for Ali (again) and Pilger laying into the media for their coverage of the referendum.
I think people forget that Venezuelans are perfectly capable of supporting a politician without supporting everything that politician wants.
The sense of politics as team sports in the US is fed by a corporate media that doesn’t want people to think for themselves.
That’s a good point, my Godless liberal friend. Certainly, with reform packages like this and with his “a vote against the reforms is a vote against me is a vote for Bush” rhetoric Chavez sometimes comes close to falling into that himself. His personality cult is much exaggerated by those who give the Venezuelans far too little credit (independent thought is perhaps too much for some people to expect from poor brown furriners), but maybe this little defeat will teach him to reconnect with the people a bit more.
See also the more detailed analysis at Oil Wars, which ultimately arrives at similar conclusions: