Dec 3, 2007

Some thoughts on outcome of Venezuela referendum

Here are some initial comments on the Venezuelan referendum from Stuart Munchton shared on the GLW list.
Note from Stuart:"I should stress these are just initial thoughts, people may have different takes on all aspects of this. More than anything, the people who will have the clearest view on it will be those who are there on the ground. Some of my impressions are based on conversations with comrades in Venezuela, but obviously they will be able to give the best feel by a long way for not just why the result was what it was, but what is much much harder to get a sense of especially if you are not there, which is what does it mean now.
"
by Stuart Munckton

A few things to think about in relation to it: These are some of my initial thoughts, although obviously people on the ground will be able to give the clearest explanations. The actual figures show the story very clearly.

No: 4.504.354, 50,70 %
Yes: 4.379.392, 49.29 %
Votes counted: 8.883.746
Nullified: 118.693
Total votes: 9.002.439

Abstention 44,39 %

B Block, second part of reform

No: 4.522.332, 51,05 %

Yes: 4.335.136, 48.94 %


If you compare this to the December 06 presidential elections, the vote for Chavez was around 7.1 million and for the opposition I think 4.4 million. So what has happened is not that the opposition necessarily won anyone over, as there is vote is only 100,000 or so more. They held solid. What has happened is the revolutionary camp lost 2.8 million votes. There are 2.8 million people they were able to convince to cast a ballot for Chavez one year ago, who they could not convince to participate and cast a vote in favour of the constitutional reforms this time.

Given a number of factors this is not so hard to understand, and indicate some of the very serious problems that the revolution needs to overcome. Clearly the revolution was unable to properly explain the reforms and convince people of their necessity. The reforms included some quite radical components - power to communal and workers councils etc etc, deepening road to socialism. Support for the reforms requires a much higher level of consciousness than to simply back the social missions and liking Chavez. It required a leap forward in ideology and consciousness. Clearly this happened has happened in an uneven way - it is no mean feat to convince 4.3 million people to vote for the type of radical measures in the constitutional reform proposals. But it has hasn't happened on a large enough scale by a long way.


However it was also not a straight forward fair fight between competing ideologies. The capitalists don't fight fair. A major factor from the sounds of it is the role of the capitalist media which remains dominant in Venezuela (again making a mockery of the "dictatorship with no free press" claims). And they lied and spread all kinds of positions. It was said the state would be able to take you children and your home, that small shops would be nationalised etc etc, and of course the standard ones about Chavez seizing power etc.

This clearly had an impact in confusing people, causing people to abstain as they were either confused or bought the lies or just didn't understand what the reforms are really about - hence abstention from the less conscious layers of the Chavista support base who didn't caste a vote for the opposition, but didn't caste a vote for the reforms either but abstained.

This gets to the key problem of the serious weaknesses in the Chavista camp, clearly they failed to run a successful campaign that was able to counter the lies of the opposition and convince a whole layer of people on why the reforms were necessary. Partly they were at a severe disadvantage against the corporate media, but that can't explain it alone. Comrades on the ground there will be able to give the clearest picture about this factor - what the problems were.etc. But it sounds like the propaganda wasn't that convincing or well done, it was too legalistic and hard to follow. So people were confronted with 69 legalistic dense reforms on the one hand, and the opposition propaganda blaring on the other.

It would seem to also be a problem of disorganisation within the Chavistas - the fact the PSUV is still being formed. The PSUV was made the key body to drive the "Yes" campaign, which was done to give impetus to the PSUV in order to allow to form properly, but this was obviously a gamble because it left the Yes campaign in the hands on something still forming, not necessarily up to the job. One other factor that may come into play and would be interesting to hear about, is the sort of problems that have been raised with past election campaigns of them being dominated by bureaucrats who tend to runt hem inefficiently from the top down, and undemocratically - various party heads running the show etc. I don't know how much this was the case, but perhaps this time the problems caused by this couldn't;t be overcome by the sheer momentum from below as i the past.

One other thing to consider is the actual size of the task the revolution set itself to achieve. This was the first battle since 2002 not waged under the cover of defence against right-wing attacks. It was not about defending the democracy , the new constitution people believed in, defending the gains being made for the working people and poor from the old forces wanting to take it all back. This was the case in April 2002, the bosses lock-out, the recall referendum in 2004.

Even the presidential election last year seemed to have a fair element of that, even though it included an attempt to go on the offensive around socialism. There was a strong comment of "don't let those bastards back in" and support for the gains that existed around the missions etc. Rosales was a coup plotter and they used ads of him shaking Carmona's hand etc etc. As Chavez has quoted Trotsky repeatedly as saying "the revolution advances under the whip of the counterrevolution"

But this was an attempt to go beyond that, and go on the offensive. This was the first battle to be waged under the steam of the revolution alone. This was not waged as an act of self defence, but this time it was the revolution that started the battle. And it required a much higher level of consciousness etc.

So in a sense, it also plays the role of giving an account of the real situation. What is the real support out there for the project of socialism, as opposed to merely supporting Chavez and the missions etc? How deep is the consciousness? Obviously it is not good to lose a battle like this, but at least it reveals what the actual state of play is. The revolution can see exactly how many put up their hands to significantly deepen the process, and it shows the size of the task for the vanguard organised in the PSUV - the ideological battle that must be waged. It shows how successful that battle has been and what the clearly very real weaknesses are.


There is a further question, that is bit more complicated in Venezuela because of how the revolution has developed, which is the inherent problems with bourgeois democracy. It is rigged to favour the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie have a huge advantage in this kind of referendum through their control of the media especially. That isn't to say the process shouldn't have happened like this, or that this is an excuse for the defeat. It just states the truth - it wasn't a fair fight.

There is also an element that this type of atomised, individualised voting inherently gives weight to the layers with the weakest consciousness, who are the less clear etc. You have two solid blocks on either side, then a big layer who it seems back Chavez but whose consciousness is more limited, not necessarily understanding or supporting socialism - and it this vacillating layer that determines such votes.


Direct democracy, organised democracy of the working people taking control in their communities and workplaces, has a very different dynamic. It puts the weight on the vanguard, the most conscious, who can help lead others. The most conscious will be the most active in the councils and most able to give a lead on what to do, will most likely be elected to the next layer up in the inverted pyramid built from the ground up. This way those four million people who understand what is at stake and agree with the way to advance the revolutionary course, are able to help lead in their areas in the actual governing of society.


Of course, this type of democracy is exactly what they are trying to construct - and would have been given a mandate and institutional framework had the reforms passed. But there is still a "parallelism" that has contradictions - the developing of a new revolutionary state based on direct democracy that empowers the working people, and the existing old structures that are based on representative democracy . That isn't to say it is wrong to try and advance the way they have, there may well be no other road but the one they are on, or at least, having taken this road, they are not in opposition to suddenly jump to another track. It just sets out the challenges.

Obviously, no one knows what will happen next. But it sounds like Chavez gave a very good speech that was pitched right, fully accepting the result, but with the famous "For now" indicating the battle continues. Losing a battle does not mean losing a war. The revolution still exists, the revolutionary government still exists, the communal councils, the missions, etc etc all still exist.

Sometimes you lose battles. The revolution has won every battle since 2002 - its winning streak has been ended, and this indicates things are not just going to continue sailing smoothly into the socialist future, but that the problems beneath the surface, that have been much talked about - ideology, bureaucracy, divisions among revolutionaries etc, must be overcome.

The counterrevolution is obviously strengthened, although by how much remains to be seen, as is the damage this defeat will do to the revolutionary camp - whether serious demoralisation, or whether they can rebound reasonably quickly. It may embolden the counterrevolution to greater efforts to destroy the revolution based on gaining momentum - and we should keep eyes wide open for need for solidarity against fresh attempts to overthrow the government. Of course wining a vote on the reforms is one thing, it is another to confront the organised and increasingly armed working people in an all out battle for power. But if this causes widespread democratisation, confusion and disorganisation among Chavistas then that could be an opening for counterrevolution.

The corporate media will gloat. But this defeat is far from total, there are plenty of battles ahead it is just for now, the institutionalising of a dramatic step forward (which would have had to be fought out on the ground anyway) has been stopped "for now"