Marc Becker
For NIGD newsletter
September 2, 2004
marc@yachana.org

The defeat of an August 15 referendum to recall Hugo Chavez from the presidency of Venezuela represents a significant victory not only its citizens but for democracy throughout the Americas. At issue domestically was whether resources in the world’s fifth largest oil exporting country would benefit a small wealthy elite class, or provide social services to a historically marginalized population. Internationally, the defeat of the recall referendum was a blow to neoliberal economic models and imperialism.

Together with these social reforms are ideas of a new form of “participatory protagonistic democracy” in which people have a real voice in the political process. It is replacing a “representative democracy” which only served to entrench wealth and power in the hands of a ruling elite. Some Venezuelans contrast their new system to that of the U.S. which they see as a “corporate democracy” designed to disempower rather than empower the people.

Chavez’s mannerisms and colloquial speech patterns as well as his social policies and economic priorities have alienated Venezuela’s traditional white ruling elite that has always held political power and benefitted from the country’s rich oil reserves. He appears alternatively as mentally unstable or a traitor to the country who must be removed at any cost. Each of their attempts, however, has met with failure. A coup attempt in April 2002 removed Chavez for two days, but a wellspring of popular support from poor neighborhoods surrounding the capital city of Caracas forced him back into power. An employer strike in the state oil company in December 2002 significantly damaged the economy, but failed to undermine Chavez’s popular support.

After failing in their illegal and extra-constitutional efforts to remove Chavez, the elite finally turned to the democratic process in a last-ditch attempt to oust the president. After winning office in 1998, Chavez led a rewriting of the constitution that significantly expanded democratic and civil rights for the Venezuelan people. One of the innovations of the constitution was a provision which allowed for the recall of elected officials midway through their terms. While some observers noted the irony of Chavez’s own constitution being used against him and while at first the government fought against holding the referendum, in the end Chavez appeared to relish the fight and welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the legitimacy of his constitutional mandate.

The opposition (derisively known as escualidos or the squalid ones by the pro-government chavistas) went into the referendum seemingly confident that they would win. Their polls showed them in the lead, the media is almost universally viral in its treatment of the government, and condemnation of the government is hegemonic in the wealthy neighborhoods where the opposition is based gave them a sense of invincibility. Several interpretations can help explain this gap between expectations and reality. Obviously, the opposition was a victim of listening to is own rhetoric. In addition, their pollsters employed models that no longer match Venezuelan reality. Political participation in marginalized neighborhoods has increased dramatically under the Chavez government, and middle-class neighborhoods no longer determine the balance of political power as had happened under previous governments.

In the end, Chavez earned 59 percent of the vote which is about the same as he has polled in past elections and, according to some analysts, equal to what he will probably garner in the 2006 election. In order to succeed, the vote for the recall needed to win more than 50 percent of the vote and it also had to poll more votes than the president had won in the last election. The recall failed on both counts. The eighteen-point spread in the vote represented a significant victory for the Chavez government.

The opposition responded to their loss with charges that the Chavez government had won through massive fraud. Nevertheless, international observer missions led by the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center declared the election to be the most clean, transparent, and accurate in the country’s history. When pressed by an opposition reporter, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter finally retorted that the process here was cleaner and more legitimate than the 2000 vote in Florida. The opposition’s refusal to recognize the outcome of the referendum and lack of respect for the democratic process was clear even before the voting started. Whereas Chavez declared that he would recognize the results of the referendum whatever the outcome and accept them peacefully, the opposition never made any similar statements. Even the Carter Center which historically has been antagonistic to the Chavez administration grew increasingly impatient with the opposition, and denounced its tactics of attempting to disrupt a democratic process.

Some of Chavez’s most die-hard support comes from Indigenous and African peoples who feel that for the first time they have a government who cares for them and defends their interests. Nicia Maldonado, the head of the National Indian Council of Venezuela, notes that although “it is not an Indigenous person who leads the government, we support him because he has lent Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples a protagonistic participation, not in speech but in fact and action.” Afro-Venezuelan activist Jesus Garcia noted that the referendum is not just about the figure of one man, but the hope of the people is at stake with all of the related historical contractions. The Chavez government has redistributed 3 million hectares of land and 40 percent of that has gone to African and Indigenous peoples. The Robinson Mission has brought literacy to marginalized communities. If Chavez were defeated, these and other social programs would be ended. “What is at play in this referendum,” another person noted, “is our future, our dignity and our hopes as Indigenous peoples to live with dignity and in peace.”

When poor people, including Indigenous and African peoples, shout “viva Chavez” on the streets, one almost has a sense that they are not thinking of the man who currently occupies the seat of chief executive but the space he represents for civil society to struggle for and realize their goals. Arguably, a charismatic and energetic figure like Chavez is crucial at this point in building a new society to give direction and coherence to the process, but even Chavez notes that these social changes are much larger than himself. For Indigenous and African peoples, Chavez’s defeat would not represent so much the loss of a popular leader as it would the loss of social programs and a government that listens to and cares about them. His victory now provides an opportunity to build broader participation and deepen the political process of building a more humane, more just, and more internationalist culture.

Chavez’s defense of marginalized and oppressed people has gained him the support of activists throughout the Americas. Jesús García noted that theimplications of the referendum was not just for Venezuela, but for all of Latin America. The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela represents an alternative way to organizing society that puts the needs of the people first. The defeat of the recall referendum was not only a victory for one man or even for a country, but it is a victory for all who desire a more peaceful and just social order.

Marc Becker is a member of NIGD and teaches Latin American history at Truman State University. He was an observer to the Venezuelan recall referendum in August 2004.