Features » December 26, 2008

Chávez Wins Again (cont’d)

On Nov. 23, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (center) waves to supporters in Caracas before entering a polling station to vote in the state and municipal elections.

Many Venezuelans are attracted to Chávez’s lofty ideals, nationalist rhetoric and social concerns, but they are beginning to chafe at some of the concrete results of his rule.

Priorities and tradeoffs

The opposition’s claim that Chávez reduced the elections to a referendum over his own popularity misses the point. The president’s social programs, which local Chavista candidates ardently supported and which municipal and state governments help finance, heavily influenced voters’ preferences.

The social programs — such as education, healthcare and food distribution, which are referred to as “missions” — reach out to millions of the underprivileged and operate at a fraction of the cost of the same services provided elsewhere. Voters back these programs, even though in some cases they sacrifice quality in favor of quantity. Lina Gfeller, who is a principal in one of the education “missions” in the eastern city of Barcelona, says “the enormous popularity of the missions, even among some middle-class people, shows how much support there is for the proposition that education and health should be free and open to all.”

A makeshift university program called “Sucre Mission” offers evening courses in public schools throughout the country. Lacking library facilities, few teachers assign reading from books, so students of all majors carry out assignments in the community, such as designing public works projects that are then used to apply for grants. For the first time since it was founded in 2003, 30,000 Sucre Mission students were awarded university diplomas in 2008, while 100,000 receive small stipends to help them continue their studies.

Chavista candidates hail this program along with the other “missions,” such as the literacy campaign for the nation’s 1.5 million illiterates and the Ribas Mission for adult high school students. Caracas candidate and former Education Minister Aristobulo Istúriz, speaking with the president of the Ribas Mission at a student graduation ceremony at the outset of the campaign, stated: “Each one of these graduations constitutes an important event for the revolution; they highlight universalization of rights.”

The most recent and innovative program injects state money into community councils, which design and execute their own public works projects. Twenty-seven thousand councils have sprung up over the last three years mainly among non-privileged sectors of the population. Common priority projects, which are ratified in neighborhood assemblies, include the construction of roads, sidewalks, community houses and family housing. The community councils insist that companies contracted for these projects employ residents of the same neighborhood when possible.

In September 2007, Chávez decreed federal matching funds for all municipal and gubernatorial grants for community council projects. From a cost-benefit perspective, the program is open to criticism. The money allotted could undoubtedly reap better immediate results in the hands of private contractors. But the councils promote the Chavista goal of popular participation in decision- making.

Has the opposition evolved?

Public opinion surveys indicate that social programs are the most popular feature of Chávez’s rule. This popularity has undoubtedly influenced some opposition leaders to pledge themselves to continue the missions. Manuel Rosales, who had run against Chávez in the 2006 presidential elections — and who was elected mayor of Maracaibo this time around — assured mission students that their stipends of about $100 U.S. per month would not be endangered. Nevertheless, several years ago the pro-opposition Medical Federation of Venezuela went to the courts in an attempt to expel from the country the 15,000 Cuban doctors who staff much of the health mission program.

During the campaign, opposition leaders made a concerted effort to focus on local problems and avoid incessant references to Chávez. This strategy broke with the past when the opposition seemed obsessed with Chávez’s personality. In this respect, it has come a long way since 2002 to 2004, when it promoted a coup, an indefinite general strike and even street warfare. In 2005, it boycotted congressional elections and, in the weeks leading up to the 2007 referendum, some of its members shut down highways and threatened post-election insurgency.

But opposition leaders continue to call Chávez authoritarian, to criticize all of his words and actions (the educational “missions” being an exception), and to warn of the danger of Castro Communism.

As has been the case since the outset of the Chávez presidency, the opposition still lacks a program that defines its strategy. It has yet to demonstrate how it would avoid a return to the misguided rule that preceded Chávez’s advent to power when corruption and social inequality intensified.

This failure may be a mixed blessing. It avoids infighting between the opposition’s parties — such as between Primero Justicia (Justice First), which supports explicitly conservative economic policies, and others that attempt to demonstrate greater concern for social problems. But unlike the Chavistas — who held primaries in which 2.5 million voters chose their candidates for governor and mayor — the opposition’s candidates were selected largely by political elites. Some opposition politicians objected to the unfair role played by TV magnate Alberto Federico Ravell of “Globovision” in favor of the candidates of the UNT headed by Manuel Rosales and Gerardo Blyde.

What’s ahead?

Since assuming power in 1998, Chávez has followed electoral victories by implementing popular, radical measures. This time, however, his triumph was less than absolute and he is now subject to financial restraints as a result of falling oil prices.

To maintain the momentum of his rule, Chávez could crack down on corrupt government officials, including Chavista ones. The Chavista rank and file — as well as the Venezuelan population — has long clamored for action along these lines. And during the campaign, Chávez threatened to purge his government and party of self-serving members. This is not the first time Chávez has announced these intentions. But history demonstrates that Venezuelans are less tolerant of corruption during periods of economic downturn, such as what the nation now faces, than in years of oil-induced bonanza.

During the past 10 conflict-ridden years, Chávez’s bold initiatives in the aftermath of victories have never failed to invigorate his movement. The coming year is unlikely to be an exception.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 40% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  As usual,  Ellner’s analysis of what is going on in Venezuela casually dismisses any and all criticism of Chavez’s painfully obvious authoritarianism as being nothing more than opposition propaganda.

  But the fact is that many on the Venezuelan left have also issued strong criticisms of Chavez’s governing style, constant power plays, and transparently anti-democratic maneuvering.

  For the left to gain greater credibility - and deepen our own understanding of contemporary politics- we need to move beyond the kind of simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again.

  It should be possible to support the general thrust of Chavez’s economic policies, acknowledge that he hasn’t totally undermined Venezuela’s fragile democracy, while also being able to see what any casual observer would be hard pressed not to see -  that Chavez is a demagogue who has strong authoritarian tendencies.

  Ken Brociner

  Posted by kenbrociner on Dec 29, 2008 at 6:12 AM

  I took Steve Ellner’s account to be a necessary corrective to the mainstream news accounts that have portrayed the recent elections almost exclusively as a defeat, when in fact the results are mixed.

  Perhaps I’m assuming to much, but I take Brociner’s comments to mean that on whole he thinks Chavez has undermined rather than strengthened Venezuelan democracy. While I think that it’s fair to criticize the personalist and macho character of his leadership, or to debate the wisdom of changing the constitution, I think on balance Venezuela is a more democratic place today because, in part, of Chavez’s leadership. I also think that it would be more democratic if Chavez adhered more to the “participatory” and “protagonistic” spirit of the Bolivarian constitution. I did not think Ellner was dismissing criticism of Chavez as merely an opposition ploy. I do think Venezuelan democracy would be healthier if there were more democratic debate and criticism in chavismo itself, and the lack of it must be attributed in some important measure to Chavez himself.

  Could we avoid comments, such as “simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again” (which should apply to replies to Brociner as well), and stick to debating the issues.

  Posted by hellindc on Dec 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

  Ken Brociner calls Chavez an authoritarian, yet Chavez has both been elected and won constitutional affirmation probably more than any other candidate in Latin America. Indeed, what he seeks with the upcoming referendum is the right to face the voters again. What kind of an authoritarian is that?

  Let’s recall that the Republicans imposed term limits on the United States because they were unable to defeat FDR at the ballot box.

  Having read Ellner’s work for years, he’s hardly an apologist for Chavez, whose actions Ellner has critically assessed more than once. Thanks for providing Ellner with a platform.

  Chavez is trying to bring about substantial radical political change through a parliamentary democratic system. That’s a rather infrequently-chosen route to social change. It should be applauded rather than bad-mouthed, in my opinion.

  Posted by walterlx on Dec 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM

  One would hope that someone who writes opinion articles keeps minimum standards of debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Brociner does not. More to the point, while Mr. Ellner gives us a well balanced view of Venezuela’s current political affairs (there is both praise and criticism in his article regarding Chavez and Chavismo) with clearly stated verifiable facts, Mr. Brociner uses similar generalizing opinion strategies as the Venezuelan oposition does for the most part in the media such as ‘expert political analysts say…, well known economists critizise…, etc..

  For instance, who are the ‘many on the Venezuelan left’ referred to by Mr. Brociner?, perhaps those who abandoned leftist political views held for years in Venezuelan Politics, including armed insurgency but who now hold rightist polititcal views?. On the other hand, is there a political leader or president anywhere in the world who does not receive criticism from people who profess the same ideology?.

  Additionally, when Mr. Brociner writes ’ Chavez’s painfully obvious authoritarianism’, does he refer to the fact that no one is jailed as a result of, for instance,  either calling for his overthow (including the recently elected, yes elected, Mayor of Caracas: Antonio Ledezma)  or worse yet calling for his assasination as it once appeared in a small paid add in El Nacional.

  Finally,  in my view, it is everybody’s responsability to make rigorous a and serious contributions to prevent the degradation of public and political debate.

  Nando Troyani

  Posted by Nando on Dec 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM

  First let me apologize for taking so long to reply to the thoughtful comments above.

  Hellendic: Perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh. But I really believe that accusing Steve Ellner of employing simple minded apologetics is an accurate description of the stance he repeatedly takes towards Hugo Chavez.

  You yourself listed a number of concrete examples of what I would call – even if you would not – Chavez’ authoritarian methods and style. But Ellner – in the articles I have read of his – barely even addresses any of these kinds of critiques of Chavez. Instead he artfully dodges them by criticizing other aspects of Chavez’ government, but never (as far as I have seen) actually criticizing “El Commadante’s” lust for personal power. It may be that Ellner really doesn’t see Chavez as being on a huge power/ego trip. If that is the case, than it seems to me this would be a classic case of willful blindness – a phenomenon that is very closely related (in my opinion) to simple-minded apologetics. The other possibility is that Ellner does see what is almost impossible not to see, but he chooses to fend off any serious criticism of Chavez’ style of governance out a sense of political loyalty to the Venezuelan president.. If that is the case, then my description of Ellner would be even more fitting.

  As for the question of whether Venezuela is more or less democratic than it was before Chavez took power – I would agree with you that it is significantly more democratic especially when you include economic democracy. And Chavez deserves a lot of credit for this. But he has also constantly undermined the both the letter and the law of the institutions that are needed for a healthy political democracy to thrive.- not that these institutions were being fully respected by the governments that preceded Chavez – because they certainly were not.

  Nando:  I would urge you to read this article   http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=220 from Dissent magazine.  Even though it is a few years old, it provides ample evidence that Chavez’ brand of political democracy leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I am not endorsing every point or accusation that Leo Casey makes here – as I simply do not know enough of the details to be able to do so. But even if some of the charges against Chavez are groundless or unfair, it seems to me that one would be extremely hard pressed to deny that the overall picture that is presented here is quite troubling – to put it mildly.

  Posted by kenbrociner on Jan 7, 2009 at 3:50 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 14 posts.

Also featured What Went Wrong?
Lines Drawn in the Sandinistas
The Radical Conservative

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Steve Ellner

• Rethinking Venezuelan Politics
  Ten years after Chavez's election, the movement he inspired remains divided over goals and strategies.Posted on August 23, 2009
• The Trial (And Errors) of Hugo Chávez
  Venezuelans are debating whether Chávez is putting the windfall of revenue from oil revenues to good use or squandering it through disorganization, corruption and misplaced prioritiesPosted on August 27, 2007
• Chávez Consolidates Power
  With the opposition routed, Venezuela's "revolutionary process" seems set to accelerate Posted on December 28, 2006
• Chávez’s Opposition Opts Out
  On December 4, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez called the opposition's eleventh-hour decision to… morePosted on December 21, 2005
• Chávez Hits a Home Run
  Venezuela’s embattled president calls his own shot by winning the recall electionPosted on August 23, 2004