Progressive Change in Venezuela

[Judi Lynn]

Progressive Change in Venezuela
Mark Weisbrot

The defeat of the Venezuelan government's proposed constitutional reforms last Sunday will probably not change very much in Venezuela. Most of what was in the reforms can be enacted through the legislature. This is especially true for the progressive reforms: social security pensions for informal sector workers, free university education, the prohibition of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. The negative elements, such as expanding the government's powers in a state of emergency, probably wouldn't have changed much if they had passed. The Chávez government has never declared a state of emergency and did not invoke any special powers even when most democratic governments in the world would have done so, e.g., during the oil strike of 2002-2003, which crippled the economy and almost toppled the government for the second time in a year, or after the April 2002 military coup. (It is also worth noting that even if they had passed, the amendments wouldn't have given the Venezuelan government the authority to commit the worst infringements on civil liberties that the Bush Administration has made in its "war on terror.")

Chávez's proposal to scrap term limits was defeated, but he has more than five years to try again if he wants. But even if this is his last term, the changes under way in Venezuela will not likely be reversed when he steps down.

Most important, the character of the political battles in Venezuela has not changed. The popular presentation of this contest as between pro-Chávez and anti-Chávez forces is misleading. It is a struggle of left versus right, with the two sides divided and polarized along the lines of class, democracy, national sovereignty and race.
(snip)

With regard to class, polls sponsored by the opposition and the government show that poor and working people are overwhelmingly pro-Chávez, and the upper classes are against him. There are obvious reasons for this class divide: the Chávez government has provided healthcare to the vast majority of poor Venezuelans, subsidized food and increased access to education. Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person has increased by 314 percent over the eight years of the Chávez administration. The proportion of households in poverty has dropped by 38 percent--and this is measuring only cash income, not other benefits such as healthcare and education. Interestingly, the upper classes have also done pretty well, but they appear to oppose Chávez for mostly ideological reasons, including his commitment to "twenty-first century socialism." The Chávez administration has also provided the poor with more of a voice in government than they have ever had.

More:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/weisbrot

[Hieronymus]

1. Excellent piece, thanks for posting it here.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Bravo, Mark Weisbrot! He makes the essential point that Chavez's Bolivarian

Revolution is widely supported in the region, including by the region's other leaders, and has brought prosperity and new independence, in its dealings with the U.S., to all of these countries. The Bushites and their corporate news propaganda arm have tried their darndest to paint Chavez as a "dictator." But nobody in the region cares what they say. They all know it isn't true, and have strongly supported Chavez against this Bushite slander campaign.

He doesn't mention it, but the process of rewriting constitutions and strengthening presidential powers is occurring in Bolivia and Ecuador, as well as this recent effort in Venezuela (which lost by a hair). The power to hold their countries together in the face of Bushite/CIA destabilization tactics and U.S.-backed rightwing coup attempts--and economic warfare, such as Donald Rumsfeld proposed in an op-ed in WaPo last week--is important to many leaders in the region, who are forging paths to social justice, including control of their oil, gas and other resources for the benefit of the poor. The matter of how to protect their sovereignty is on the minds of many leaders and their supporters. In any case, if anyone wonders why the Chavistas proposed new emergency powers for Chavez, control of the central bank, and maintaining the threat (to the rightwing elite) of Chavez running again in 2012, they have only to read Rumsfeld, who threatens both military intervention and economic warfare--after he dismantles the U.S. Congress, that is (so the U.S. can take "swift"action "in support of friends and allies"). If Rumsfeld succeeds in his nefarious plan, the 10% of pro-Chavez voters who turned back the referendum may live to regret their votes. All reform to date would be lost in a successful rightwing coup.