September 8th., 2004

The frustrated referendum

Summary:

• The view that the attempt to find an electoral solution to the crisis failed, again, gains strength.

• Fraud continues to be a foggy shadow hovering over RR results.

• Harvard and MIT professors voice their views.

• Uncertainty over the electorate will expressed on 15 August, undermines  faith in a political solution through voting.

• Anomie or solutions by force.

• Social and racial resentment is a cultured broth for Chavismo.

• An Encounter of Solidarity With The Bolivarian Revolution with 300 foreign guests.

• Next December:  A World Encounter Of Intellectuals For The Defense Of Humanity, linked to The Peoples Permanent Tribunal and The World Social Forum.

• Chávez oxygenates the Latin American Left and gives new life to Populism Perón Style.

• “The Bolivarian Revolution and its President had become the undeniable vanguard of the process of anti-imperialist liberation.”  (Heinz Dietrich).

•  Oil –an old player in Venezuelan politics- plays strongly for Chávez domestic entrenchment and for him to gain friends in the international scenario.

•  To launch guerrillas or to await a drop in oil prices?

• To go to the mountains is the advise of Chávez to the opposition.

• The electoral rosary of the next two years is important.  But the inflection point is 2006.

• The Venezuelan Case is not closed –at least- for the greater majority of Venezuelans.

Prominent leaders of the opposition in Venezuela, frequently, boast about their admiration for Karl Popper –less for pedantry than for conviction-.  The definition of democracy by the British philosopher was quoted many times for the proponents of a democratic path which prevailed in the confrontation with Chávez.  “A bloodless means to force out those in power,” said Popper.  The concept does not lose validity.  But one of the dangerous effects of the frustrated referendum of 15 August, is that the failure to find  an electoral solution to the crisis gains strength anew.  The OAS has declared that the Venezuelan Crisis ended 15 August.  With more or less emphasis, the international community has echoed it.  This is a circumstantial optimism or an explainable fatigue for The Venezuelan Case.

There is a background problem:  the foggy shadow hovering over the RR results.  Recently, Ricardo Hausmann [Harvard University] and Roberto Rigobón [M. I. T.] were part of a debate on results from a technical-statistical analysis –according to which- there is a high probability of fraud.  The academic credentials of both professors nourished doubts on those not very convinced –roughly half of the populace- about figures given by NEC.  The Preliminary Report by The Analysis Commission  of The DCG has had a  similar effect.

Uncertainty over the electorate will expressed the day of the RR is undermining faith in the political solution through voting as a democratic mean.  It is not a matter of Venezuelans desperate to get rid of Chávez distancing themselves from the peaceful exercise of their rights.  Of the 14 million called to participate in the RR, 30 % abstained.  The winner got 40 %.  The loser got 30 %.  The NEC gives the latter to the opposition.  If these would slide into abstention, believing there is no sense in voting –as its will shall be kidnapped by fraud- the open roads would be anomie, as an attitude of the majority, or the temptation of solutions by force.

It is a diagnostic season of the process led by Chávez.  The most varied appear:  from an imperfect democracy to a constitutional dictatorship with a totalitarian vocation.

BOLIVARIAN IDEOLOGY AND INTERNATIONALISM

What seems clear is that the so-called Bolivarian Revolution is attaining some ground in sectors motivated by social and racial resentment, which is at the core of his discourse.  The regime has not neglected ideological formation.  Besides thousands of the young sent to Cuba for training courses, there is, within the country, a large network producing activists persuaded of their mission.

In a recent Encounter of Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, -presided by Chávez and attended by 300 foreign guests-, it was concluded that the central dimension of the revolution is the creation of a revolutionary subject as player and promoter of the new Venezuelan.  In the Encounter, the agenda’s theme was the originality of The Venezuelan Case:  “To change institutional norms using legal chinks.”  In the activity there were presentations on:  1) How to strengthen the articulation between oil and other basic industries into the process; 2) The alternative of mass media:  neutral or revolutionary machines; 3) The working class and the peasantry as players of the revolution; 4) The new role of The Armed Forces, among others.  The character who got the greatest attention was Armando Hart a Cuban survivor of Sierra Maestra.

This Neo-Marxism has been looked at with disdain, qualifying it as haggard.  But the truth is that a large part of the world’s Left has its eyes fixed on the Venezuelan experience, demonstrated by the passionate interest with which these movements followed planet wide the development of the RR.

Chavismo represents a socially emergent player with a new cultural configuration.  Analysts say that a new political-electoral cultural is breaking grounds in Venezuelan society.  The Chavista discourse tunes into the material needs of popular sectors who associate socioeconomic demands with political participation and social recognition.  RR results warn about a strong social polarization with new political and class ingredients.  Revolutionary grammar and symbols have given politically-efficient affective bonding to broad segments of the poor while strengthening leadership and support for Chávez.

In this perspective, it is an obligation to interpret Chávez’s new proposal for the deepening of the revolution.  Venezuelan media –generally- ignores a certain background of the process.  Is this really important?  The Comandante believes so.  For next December he has called a “World Gathering of Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity.”  He’s already working on an Organizing Committee which announces the coming to Caracas of five hundred intellectuals and artists from five continents.  The declared purpose is to create a permanent network of networks linked to The Peoples Permanent Tribunal and The World Social Forum.

Heinz Dietrich is the chairperson of The Organizing Committee and he recently said:  “The Bolivarian Revolution and its President have become an undeniable vanguard of the anti-imperialist liberation process.”

THE CHALLENGES OF THE OPPOSITION

El Nuevo Herald synthesized opinions which have appeared in a large part of the U. S. media.  Chávez triumph in the RR oxygenates the Left in Latin America,  Views range from Ariel Cohen (Heritage Foundation),who says that the immediate objectives of the Bolivarian Revolution are countries in South America with oil resources –Chávez works in their destabilization-including those who believe his influence is limited to breathing new life into populism Perón style.

The has elicited coinciding comments –at home and abroad- on the impact of high oil prices on the dynamics of Venezuelan politics.  Likewise, the observation of Chávez’s projection onto the international scenario.  The most convincing discourse for followers and admirers  -obviously in many places- is the petrodollars distributed with equal generosity as he does it in his never-ending electoral campaign.  If Chávez pretends to be the prophet of protest movements, he’s not an unarmed prophet.  His weapon is powerful, especially, as long as oil maintains high prices.

Which alternatives are left for the opposition?  The Economist asks.  He answers:  “To launch guerrillas or to await a decline in oil prices and there be no way of funding more populism.”  To go to the mountains is just what Chávez advised the opposition to do in his Aló Presidente.  Notwithstanding, opposition leaders can and should recuperate their trust in Popper.  For this, it would be a must to attain guarantees of clean and transparent elections to call for the election of governors and mayors, scheduled for next 31 October.

The opposition faces difficult challenges, now deserted by the international community who seems set to bet for Chávez as an element of stability and refusing to view him as a regional problem.  The electoral rosary of the next two years is important, but the point of inflection is 2006.  It is not a presidential election under the vision of a democratic model.  It is not an event, but rather a key chapter in a process.  The revolution has an well-positioned, excellent candidate.  The opposition has little time to identify a proper candidate.  It would have to be a leader capable of uniting democratic people.  Even if this is achieved, it runs the risk of having everything come to end as an extraordinary civic effort, whose truth may not be perceived.  Should this be so, The OAS; The UN; The Carter Center and those who were Friendly Countries, would consolidate their sentence:  The Venezuelan Case is finished.

We hope it is not closed for those still convinced that men and women of the XXI Century have a right to live in pluralistic societies, where human rights be respected and the rule of law prevails.  For most Venezuelans it is not finished.