[Marxism] Some thoughts on the outcome of the Venezuelan referendum

[Stuart Munckton]

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.

While corporate media will be triumphant, there is already a slightly
surreal aspect to their spin - dictator defeated in an fair election
whbo immediately acepts the vote  doesn't really quite add up.

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
neccesarily 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 convicne people of their neccesity. The reforms incldued
some quite radical components - power to communal and workers councils
etc etc, cdeepening 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 convinve 4.3 million people to vote
for the type of radical measures in the constitutional reform
proposals. But it has hasnlt 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 posions. It was said the state would be able to take you
children and your home,m 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
caast a vote for the opposition, but didnlt cast 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 succesful campaign that was able to
counter the lies of the opposition and convince a whole layer of
people on why the reforms were neccesary. 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
leaglistic 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
sometehing still forming, not neccesarily 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 bureacrats 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 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 democrac y, 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 presidntial election last year seemed to have a fair element
of that, even though it included an attempt to go on the offensive
around sociailism. There was a strong comonent of "don't let those
bastards back in" and support for the gains that existied 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 repeatedy
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 hte
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 consciouseness 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 oppsed to merely supprting 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 succesful that battle has been and what
the clearly very real weakneesses are.


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

There is also an element that this type of atmosied, individualised
voting inheriantly 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 wose
consciiousness is more limited, not neccesarily understanding or
supprting socialism - and it this vacilating layer that determines
such votes.


Direct democracy, organised democracy of the working people taking
control in their communites and worklaces, has a very diffrent
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
likley 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 exaclty 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 bu thte one they are on, or at least,
having takien this road, they ared not in ap osition 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 accetping
the result, but with the famour "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
counils, 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 smothly into the socialist future, but that the
problems beneath the surface, that have been much talked about -
ideology, bureacracy, 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 demooralisation, or whether they
can rebound reasonab ly quickly. It may embolden the
cvounterrevolution to greater efforts to destroy the revolution based
on gaining mometum - 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 thig, it is another to
confront the organised and increasignly armed working people in an all
out battle for power. But if this causes widespread democraisation,
confusion and disorganisation among Chaivstas then that could be an
opening for counterrevolution.


The corporate media will gloat. But this defeat is far from total,
there are plently 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"


Stuart




-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind
of dummy?" - Jarvis Cocker