Hugo Chavez

As the tenth anniversary of the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela approaches, journalist and Solidarity supporter Iain MacLeod looks at the achievements, troubles and direction of Venezuela’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution’.

It is almost 10 years since one of the world’s most controversial leaders swept to power in a democratic election in Venezuela. It was an election that rocked a US establishment that still regards Latin America as its own backyard. Despite surviving a US backed coup in 2002 and delivering many of his promised reforms, Hugo Chavez still finds himself the subject of adulation and loathing domestically and internationally, and that division of opinion is almost wholly along class and ideological lines

Celebrated by the overwhelming majority of Venezuela’s poor, fierce Washington-led scaremongering and opposition to his socialist reforms still paint him as a fear/hate figure. But, as the anniversary of his leadership approaches, President Chavez’s position as leader of one of the world’s biggest oil producers, leading the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ in Venezuela, and inspiring the left throughout South and Central America, becomes increasingly important.

Hugo Chavez rose to prominence by standing up for the rural and urban indigenous poor and exposing how the wealth of Venezuela was being squandered by the nation’s corrupt, White House-backed elites. Galvanised by his promises of change, the workers and the massive underclass of Venezuela delivered him the country’s biggest ever democratic majority in its history.

When Chavez just last month (Sept) expelled the US ambassador to Venezuela, the move came on the 35^th anniversary of the CIA-backed coup in Chile; a bloody counter revolution which ousted Chile’s democratically elected socialist leader Salvador Allende and replaced him with the murderous dictator Augusto Pinochet. Coincidental or not, the timing of the expulsion serves as a key reminder of the political backdrop that haunts Latin America.

Throughout Chavez’s lifetime numerous democratically elected left-wing leaders in the region have been overthrown by CIA-backed projects and replaced with pro-Washington pliant puppets – many of them tyrants. What is seen by a narrow western media as anti-American paranoia is for millions of Latin Americans, a legitimate distrust of US imperialism, and it is rife throughout this part of the world.

It is not surprising that a progressive socialist government should find itself under siege from enemies, but one thing that is absolutely clear about Chavez’s tenure so far is how his domestic reforms have transformed the fortunes of Venezuelan society, most notably for working people and the poor.

Not only has Chavez redistributed the country’s oil wealth – in Venezuela and to a limited extent internationally, but he has involved his people in the process through numerous referendum votes and bold constitutional reforms.

Determined to prove himself as not just another military strongman, the former army major insisted his every move would be subject to the will of the people. In the first year of his presidency, in 1999, he held an unprecedented number of votes and referendums and produced the nation’s new constitution. In fact, the little blue book of the Venezuelan constitution became a bestseller on the streets.

Chavez with venezuelan constitution

For the first time in its modern era, this South American country has an almost 100% literacy rate, achieved through a radical programme designed to empower the millions of people who had been unheard and forgotten for generations.

Infant mortality rates have been reduced by more than 30%, child vaccination levels have gone up dramatically, and access to health care has been transformed, while land has been given to the landless agrarian poor.

Advances in Venezuelan society have also included strong improvements in wealth distribution, welfare provision and popular participation in policy and decision making. Major social and political transformations have been achieved democratically, with the electorate mandating the changes pursued in a constant cycle of elections and referenda. An $18 billion fund set up to transform social welfare is already bearing fruit. Education, food distribution and primary healthcare programs now cover the majority of the population for the first time.

The barrios of Caracas now have an atmosphere of hope, and the people residing there are voting like never before. Workers' cooperatives, trade union meetings, marches and debates are now commonplace in the city’s shanty towns.

By any standards, Hugo Chavez and his supporters have introduced a raft of measures which have positively impacted millions – a fact wilfully ignored by his opponents.

Many of the transformations were made possible through Chavez making good on his threats against the shoddy mismanagement of the then state capitalist-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela. A shake-up of the company has allowed the leader to finance significant reform, but it did not come easily. The decision to transform the company was opposed by those elites who had earlier lined their pockets, and those of their small band of cronies. It sent the country on a rolling political crisis which constantly hampered Chavez’ plans to implement Venezuela’s landmark constitution, and at one point all exports were temporarily halted.

It is the issue of oil that has frightened his opponents and the US Government the most. A vassal to Washington for decades, Venezuela is now using its oil to transform its society. Nothing threatens or irritates the US Government more than being told it will no longer be allowed to steal, abuse and plunder the wealth and resources of another nation. Most significantly, what scares the US so much is being denied the authority to exert its control in the way it has become accustomed – especially over a nation with the resources of Venezuela. As the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Salvador Allende, and many, many, others have found out, anyone offering an alternative way of developing a decent society will be treated as an adversary to the US. Chavez is at the centre of a new Latin America which is determined to be nobody's backyard.

As is usual practice, the White House had, prior to Chavez’s presidential victory, employed the services of corrupt elite to control Venezuela’s oil and in turn sell the product back to the US at a knock-down price.

In 2002, when Chavez illustrated his intentions to take control of the oil by sacking some of the oil sector’s most privileged employees his presidency would come under its biggest challenge to date.

The bold move paved the way just months later for the infamous coup in Caracas, where 17 people died when fighting due to opposition engineered violent clashes between Chavez supporters and opponents. Chavez was arrested and taken to an island off the coast, and a new puppet government installed itself in the presidential palace. For many in Latin America and throughout the world it was as if Chile 1971 was happening all over again. However,the world was about to see the level of support Chavez had galvanised.

The poor of the barrios, voiceless for years under numerous US-supported regimes, took to the streets in their tens of thousands and demanded Chavez’s release and his reinstatement as leader. Buoyed by the show of popular support for the Bolivarian revolution, rank-and-file elements of the army arrested the coup leaders and reinstalled the democratically elected cabinet. Chavez was returned to Caracas to a hero’s welcome. Significantly, he called for no reprisals against those who had led the coup.

Chavez supporters defend themselves against opposition snipers.

CIA documents released under freedom of information legislation have left no doubt that the US Government knew a coup was on its way and had approved it.

The absurdity of Washington’s position became clearer a year later when it encouraged Chavez opponents to begin organising a “recall” petition for a referendum on his presidency – which was, ironically, a mechanism only introduced into the Venezuelan political structure as a result of Chavez’s reforms.

Attention on Chavez and his government in the last year have moved to his foreign policies, which could go on to have a significant impact on the world.

Chavez has said he wants to develop a civilian nuclear power programme with Russia’s help – insisting it will be for peaceful ends – citing energy and medical needs.

Russian warships have been sent to the Caribbean to take part in joint exercises with the Venezuelan navy. Venezuela is one of the biggest customers of the Russian defence industry – signing weapons contracts worth £2.3billion. Just last month, (SEPT) two Russian bombers visited Venezuela at Chavez’s invitation, in advance of a Russian navy squadron which is due to dock in November to underline ties between Caracas and Moscow.

Russia will also provide Venezuela with a $1billion military loan, and Chavez, who has visited Russia twice since the summer, has said Russian and Venezuelan oil and gas producers will form a global energy “colossus”.

Lambasting this alliance as a modern Cold War threat, what White House officials have failed to understand is how their preposterous and poorly thought out “you’re with us or against us” policy impacts on the very nations it threatens

By isolating nations, the US ensures that these same countries will now be looking for allies in a desperate attempt to protect themselves. Given that Chavez and his government have been demonised by Washington, it is no understandable that he is determined to strengthen ties with other powerful state.

What Chavez must insist upon is that Venezuela and its people are not used by Russia. It is not yet clear whether Russia's involvement in Latin America is more about furthering its own global ambitions or about sending a message to the US, which Russia considers to have interfered in its sphere of interest during the August conflict with Georgia.

Links with Latin America may also help further Russia's aim of becoming a counterweight to the US on the international stage. Chavez must ensure Venezuela is not allowed to become a pawn of Russian oligarch politics.

Opponents have also criticised Chavez for showing solidarity with the Iranian Government, accusing him of working with tyrannical regimes.

It is hugely hypocritical however for both the US and UK governments to condemn such activity. Both align themselves on a daily basis with Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producers, yet unquestionably a regime guilty of some of the world’s most draconian and brutal abuses of human rights. As journalist and filmmaker John Pilger observed: “The Shah’s regime in Iran scored the highest on Amnesty’s register as the most brutal on earth for many years, and it was not merely an ally, but a creation of Britain and the United States.”

Another recent line of liberal attack in both the UK and the US has been to praise Chavez faintly for his reforms but accuse him of state censorship. When he was elected President, Venezuela had a media that was highly controlled by the state. He quickly moved to deregulate it, despite the inevitable onslaught of criticism he would face by the major channels which are run privately, and whose outlook was shaped by some of Chavez’s most influential opponents.

Venezuela soon had one of the most diverse, unregulated media industries in the world and the majority of stations and networks, privately owned, were hugely critical of Chavez and called for his downfall throughout the last 10 years. It is unquestionable that a free media is a prerequisite to a functioning democracy – this was highlighted as a point of principle by Chavez himself when he first came to power. But there is a difference between freedom of speech and criticism, and the freedom to be owned by vested capitalist interests who inevitably use their control of the airwaves to put over their own skewed viewpoint

Even after the failed coup attempt of 2002 the privately run media stations who had not only been cheerleaders for the coup, but helped organise were still allowed to operate freely. Recently, when Chavez refused to renew the licence of privately-owned RCTV, renowned for its fierce and biased anti-government reporting US Government and Venezuelan opponents seized on the decision to accuse Chavez of state censorship.

Beneath the scaremongering, however, the Venezuelan government’s decision is more understandable. RCTV took an active role in the failed overthrow in 2002, and yet it was never prosecuted. In fact, while the military coup was going on and Chavez, the democratically elected leader of the people, was being ousted by force, RCTV and three other private networks carried supportive wall to wall coverage. One day later, when people filled the streets to demand the end of the illegal take-over, RCTV ran cartoons in a Soviet style attempt to ignore reality and mislead.

One of Chavez’s most controversial decisions that caused concern came last year when he called for an end to presidential term limits. The move was immediately likened to steps taken previously by Castro in Cuba.

Given that the key characteristic of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela had been radical socialist reform backed by a democratic mandate, this was something that was concerning even to some on the left. However, the key point was that the proposal was subject to the referendum process and democratic mandate that Chavez had himself introduced.

Voters narrowly rejected the proposed constitutional changes by 51% to 49%. The rebuff will oblige Chavez to stand down when his term ends in 2013 rather than continuing to run for office until 2050 as he had hoped. Unless the Venezuelan people vote differently in a new referendum, there will be a new president down the line. The Bolivarian revolution, however, will continue.

The fact the proposal was put to the people shows the level to which Chavez does respect the democratic process. In accepting the defeat, Chavez said to his opponents: “I thank you and congratulate you. I recognise the decision a people have made.”

The proposal launched by Chavez was undoubtedly questionable – but the method in which he attempted to implement it was encouraging, and telling.

Although Chavez should be applauded for many decisions, he must go further still.

Venezuela should diversify and create more jobs as it cannot be forever as reliant on oil. The challenge facing the country domestically now is how to modernise its economy on a socialist basis to enable it to broaden its economic base. This would create a wider range of jobs and raise the cultural level of the working class and poor that the revolution has championed.

The democratic and social gains of the Bolivarian revolution need to be deepened and extended and the world economic crisis provides Chavez and the global socialist community an opportunity to highlight an alternative.

Chavez has quite rightly pointed out how the financial demise is a failure of a free-market capitalism which continues to act detrimentally to economies and society throughout the world.

In a recent interview, Chavez commented: “I’m among those who believe this crash of capitalism, of neo-liberalism, is going to be worse than the one in 1929 and is going to affect the entire world.”

It has to be hoped that the new world that does emerge will, inspired by the Venezuelan revolution, put people first.