|
The constitutional amendments put forward
directly by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and by the National
Assembly dominated by his supporters were unexpectedly rejected by a narrow
margin in the Dec. 2 referendum. Chavez had made the vote into a test
of confidence in his regime, declaring that voting against it would be
betraying him and the country.
The right-wing opposition, after having been defeated by Chavez in a
series of polls, originally opted for a boycott of the election. But it
switched at the last minute to support for a "no" vote, and
the U.S. big business press pushed the idea that the vote would be
decisive for "democracy" in Venezuela.
In the run-up to the election, Chavez's former minister of defense,
retired General Baduel, also called for a "no" vote.
Apparently, the opponents of Chavez's reforms felt the wind shifting
against the proposed constitutional changes.
As it happened, sections of the population that had previously
supported Chavez turned against him in this test vote. Whereas 7.3
million votes were cast for Chavez in the 2006 presidential election,
only 4.3 million were cast for his proposed constitutional amendments,
a loss of more than a third of his 2006 vote.
The "no" vote was 4.5 million, topping the "yes"
vote by about 200,000, or less than 1 percent (50.70 percent against
49.29 percent). The abstention rate was 44 percent, very high for
Venezuela. The advantage of the "no" vote was higher in the
country's five major constituencies (4.8 percent in Caracas, 5.6
percent in the state of Carabobo, 12.4 percent in the state of Miranda,
2 percent in the state of Lara, and 13.8 percent in the state of Zulia.
The proposals lost in all of the country's major cities and more
economically developed areas. On the other hand, they did well in large
parts of the countryside. Such contrasts are typically seen when
disillusionment occurs in a process of radicalization. The
radicalization spreads to newer areas, while it declines in the older
ones.
The vote for the proposals on which Chavez had pinned all his political
prestige was in fact substantially less than the membership of the
state party that he created as the instrument of his regime, the PSUV,
which now reportedly stands at 6 million out of a total of 27 million
inhabitants of the country.
Despite the apparent polarization of the country between left and
right, it was Chavez's own supporters who defeated him, not the right,
since the number of "no" voters was only slightly higher than
those who voted for the right in the 2006 presidential elections.
Nonetheless, it was the right and the imperialists who took comfort
from the defeat of Chavez's proposals. In fact, the claims that Chavez
proved his respect for democracy by his acceptance of the election
result are hollow.
What is important for the masses is that their leaders win, not that
they are good losers. Because the working people are losers in economic
life, they need victories to give them confidence that they can change
their fate.
The defeat of Chavez's proposals thus is a serious setback for the
radicalization in Venezuela. It was the future of the radicalization
that was at stake in the vote, and that is why Socialist Action favored
a "yes," vote, although the letter of the proposals and the
way that they were pushed did not merit support.
The proposals were presented in two blocs, without giving voters a
choice on the specific measures. In both blocs, progressive social
reforms were mixed up with proposals that would have strengthened the
repressive powers of the state. Moreover, since the progressive social
reforms could easily be enacted by law, it appeared that the real
purpose of the proposals was to strengthen the state. The package was
presented as a step forward toward socialism, but the references to
socialist transformation were vague and contradictory.
Some revolutionary socialists in Venezuela called for a blank vote
because of the negative features of the proposals and what they saw as
Chavez's purpose of reinforcing his ability to balance between the
bourgeoisie and the working people. They had serious arguments backed
up with important facts.
Nonetheless, in failing to support a "yes" vote, these
socialists made a grave tactical error because they appeared to
contribute to a victory for the right and the imperialists. They made
basically the same error as Chavez—that is, thinking that legal texts
are more important than the actual social and political relationship of
forces.
Groups that are hoping to make their fortunes by hanging on to Chavez's
coattails are now trying to pillory those left groups that did not
support his proposals. But they will find it difficult to isolate these
left opponents when close to 40 percent of those who voted for Chavez
in the past did not support the constitutional amendments.
The radicalization in Venezuela seems to have come to a turning point
in which the basic realities of the class struggle are asserting
themselves. Chavez's bourgeois and pro-bourgeois allies are obviously
becoming frightened that the process is getting out of control.
On the other hand, the working people are becoming impatient with the
gap between the government's invocations of socialism and the fact
that, despite the regime's social spending, their situation has not
fundamentally changed. Moreover, in some ways the conditions of the
masses are becoming worse, as the capitalist economy is becoming
distorted without Chavez’s offering an overall alternative, and without
any means for democratic control of the economy.
On the independent but pro-Chavez website, Aporrea, Roberto Lopez, a
trade-union leader in the state of Zulia, wrote Dec. 5: "There is
a flagrant contrast between the revolutionary talk and the practical
application. The problems of supply should have been solved basically
in the months following the oil strike in 2002-2003. They have created
disorientation and confusion among the people.
“In practice, we are living in a war economy, with shortages of milk, sugar,
cooking oil, toilet paper, tomato sauce, flour, chicken, meat, rice,
pasta. Virtually all the basic food items are scarce. And for a whole
year the government has proven completely impotent to solve this
problem.
“Other problems are also very much felt by the population, such as
insecurity and inflation, which the government has also been unable to
control. ... Criminals are operating with impunity throughout the
country, to the extent that the boundary line between the police and
criminal gangs has become very fuzzy....
“Inflation is eating away at workers' wages. The government predicted
12 percent inflation this year. It is going to end up being 20 percent,
almost twice what the government planned. This is destroying all the
gains in wages and other benefits that the workers have gotten over the
year.”
And at the same time, the people have been watching the cancerous
growth of the black market and a corrupt bureaucracy.
Ominously, a response of Chavez to the defeat of the proposed
amendments was to claim that his defeat showed that the Venezuelan
people were not yet ripe for socialism. In fact, all indications are
that the opposite is true, that the Venezuelan masses are becoming
disillusioned with Chavez's promises of socialism when they do not see
socialism being put into practice.
|