Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, international
politics & civilization.
Saturday
Lagniappe
Revolution
in Venezuela?
By
Joaquín Villalobos
Hugo Chávez has committed a grave error in closing down the opposition
TV station, which has been on the air a half-century. Like it or not, this was
not a frontal attack on the economic elite but rather a blow to the cultural
identity of millions of Venezuelans--and it will have severe consequences for
the government. Trying to replace popular soap operas and game shows watched
by the poor with pathetic "revolutionary" programming is as bad as
leaving them without food.
What Chávez has got wrong is his belief that he has
made a revolution when in fact he's simply won some elections.
And even those victories are more attributable to an arrogant,
bejeweled opposition that lacks mass adherents than to Chávez.
This has allowed Chávez to dominate some state institutions
and to change some of the rules of the game, but it doesn't
give him the leverage needed to impose the sort of drastic
ideological sea change he clearly intends.
In Venezuela there has been no revolutionary rupture, as there
was in Cuba and Nicaragua, two countries where there was no
democratic history. In Cuba the change was violent and encompassing;
all of the institutions were recast. And to date there is no
real Cuban opposition--nor are there real elections, freedom
of the press or private property. In Nicaragua the change was
equally violent, and though mistreated, the institutions of
press freedom, political opposition, elections and private
property all survived.
Venezuela
might be experiencing a period of extreme polarization and
social conflict, but that is not a revolution. In revolutionary
times, violence becomes prevalent, first in the form of rebellion
and later in the form of counterrevolution. So far in Venezuela,
political violence has been more verbal than material.
Forty years of peaceful transitions of government power created
a democratic culture among Venezuelans that has, fortunately
until now, made violence unnecessary. The rule of law might
be weak, but there is nevertheless the rule of law. The mistake
made by the opposition in the attempted coup of 2002 was precisely
to undervalue this democratic tradition. Overthrowing governments
is no easy task, nor is peacefully modifying the basic pillars
on which they are built. A revolutionary rupture creates a
situation of great social exaltation that--for better and worse--opens
up spaces to change many things, including prevailing ideologies
and cultural traditions. But short of revolution, these things
are difficult to change.
Anticapitalist
revolutions are fueled more by dictatorships than by poverty.
In Venezuela there was no dictatorship, and
poverty was not key to Chávez's ascent. Every revolution
imposes austerity, and this is something to which Venezuelans
on the right and left remain immune. Venezuela is not an industrial
capitalist state but rather one of export and consumerism.
Chávez is strengthening the economic role of the state,
redistributing oil income and forming new economic elites,
all mixed with doses of populism, corruption and business opportunities.
All this is new--but it is not revolution and it is not socialism.
Chávez
lacks a revolutionary party and instead depends on a fragmented
political structure rife with different ideologies.
To his right is the military, to his left some intellectuals
and below him a politically diverse base. Converting this into
a unified party would mean butting heads with a lot of local
bosses who like to disagree. Chavismo has accomplished something
important by giving power and identity to thousands of Venezuelans
who had been marginalized, but it is not cohesive, either ideologically
or historically. Rather, it is held together by petrodollars.
Nor does
Chávez have a revolutionary army. On the contrary,
the army has defeated him twice (1992 and 2002). The complicity
of the army with Chávez today rests solely on weapons
purchases, and that is much more about corruption than about
preparing for war. It's exactly this sort of privileged corruption
that closes the path to authentic revolutionary change. The
Venezuelan military will neither kill nor die for Hugo Chávez.
Fidel Castro
survived all the many attempts on his life. Daniel Ortega
led a successful insurrection in Nicaragua and Evo Morales
made a swift transition from the barricades to the presidency
of Bolivia. Chávez, by contrast, sells oil to the Americans;
on two occasions he surrendered to his enemies with no fight;
and he currently sleeps with an enemy army. This pushes him
to engage in public provocations in order to burnish his revolutionary
credentials, as he has by insulting George W. Bush. Attacks
strengthen Chávez. Tolerance weakens him. Chávez
needs external enemies to help him hide the corruption of his
own functionaries, the incompetence of his government, the
division among his supporters and the lack of security in the
streets of Caracas.
With his
latest acts Chávez has turned the process
of accumulation of forces against himself and has suddenly
revitalized a demoralized opposition. Maybe he will be able
to make some more changes in Venezuela. But he will never be
able to get rid of elections. And as long as there are elections,
there will be no permanent majorities, no fraud so great as
to be insurmountable, no set of alliances that are eternal.
Oil money can help Chávez do many things--but it will
never be enough to buy himself a revolution.
Joaquín
Villalobos was a founder in 1972 and was the
main leader of the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo
(in English: People's Revolutionary Army), during
the Salvadoran Civil War. Villalobos is now a consultant
on peacemaking matters (Colombia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Philippines,
Bosnia, Northern Ireland), and a member of the Inter-American
Dialog in Washington DC, USA. Petroleumworld
not necessarily share these views.
Editor's
Note:This
essay originally appeared in the Madrid daily El País.
Translated
by Marc Cooper.
Petroleumworld reprint
this article in the interest of our readers.
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect
either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment
as
an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed
are private comments and do not necessary reflect the view
of this
website. All comments are posted and published without liability
to Petroleumworld.
