[R-G] Venezuela's Reform Battle Continues as Chavez Ally Splits

[Anthony Fenton]

Venezuela's Reform Battle Continues as Chavez Ally Splits
November 14th 2007, by Federico Fuentes - Green Left Weekly
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/731/37903

Chavez greets cheering supporters during the Nov. 4 march in support  
of the constitutional reform. (Prensa Presidencial)
Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets of Caracas  
on November 4, in a massive sea of red, to support the proposed  
constitutional reforms adopted by the National Assembly that will be  
put to a referendum on December 2. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez  
has explained that the reforms aim to deepen the Bolivarian  
revolution that his government is leading, which has already achieved  
significant gains in redistributing wealth and power to the poor  
majority.

On November 6, Chavez explained to a swearing-in ceremony for  
activists involved in the National Zamora Command, launched to  
campaign in favour of the proposed reforms, that the referendum “is  
the most important battle” of the Bolivarian revolution so far. He  
said “destabilisation, abstention and the ‘No’ vote, are the three  
principal adversaries we have to defeat”.

Chavez argued that the socialism the reforms aimed at providing a  
framework to help construct would be “democratic and humanist”.  
Chavez explained that “this economic system will be managed by  
everyone”, claiming that democratising the economy was essential to  
defeat poverty and create happiness.

He argued that this conflicted with the interests of capitalism and  
imperialism, and that this explained the ongoing offensive against  
his government by the US government and local opposition.

Confirming Chavez’s speculation in his speech to the November 4 rally  
that some leading Chavistas would jump ship and join the counter- 
revolutionary opposition, the following day retired General Raul  
Baduel, who had been defence minister until July and who played a key  
role in defeating the April 2002 US-backed military coup against  
Chavez, broke a three-month silence declaring his opposition to the  
reforms. He said they represent a “constitutional coup” — the same  
claim made by the right-wing opposition.

During the press conference, to which only pro-opposition media  
outlets were invited, Baduel argued that the proposed reforms would  
“seize power away from the people”. “The only democratic and legal  
means left to us is to vote ‘No’ and defend ourselves [against] this  
undemocratic imposition.”

Baduel called on the armed forces to “profoundly analyse” the  
proposed changes to the structure of the military (transforming the  
reserves into a “popular militia” among other steps), declaring “it  
must be stopped”, adding that “the capacity of Venezuelan military  
men to analyse and think” should not be underestimated.

This defection came two days after a sizable mobilisation, organised  
by the radical opposition group, the National Resistance Command  
(CNR) and supported by a number of opposition parties, called for a  
boycott of the referendum. CNR leader Hermann Escarra proclaimed:  
“This is not about whether or not to vote, it is about impeding [the  
reforms].”

The speakers, applauding right-wing students who had led small but  
violent protests against the reforms, called for a march “without  
return” for November 26.

Speculation spread rapidly about the meaning of Baduel’s statements.  
Within hours, two former defence ministers, general Jorge Garcia  
Carneiro and admiral Orlando Manigilia, spoke against him.

Carneiro accused Baduel of having held “dubious” positions for a  
while, and argued his comments would not have any impact in the  
military. Manigilia reminded the military that they have the right to  
exercise their democratic vote, but not to involve themselves in  
party politics.

Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez argued that Baduel’s speech would have  
little effect, “not even a breeze”. “Baduel has said the same thing  
that the opposition has been
saying … he is not saying anything new.” Rodriquez welcomed, however,  
Baduel’s call to participate in the referendum.

Chavez declared Baduel a “traitor” and said he had become “a pawn in  
this game [of the opposition]. We will be on alert because it is part  
of a plan that without doubt aims to fill the streets of Venezuela  
with violence”.

He added that Baduel’s shift to the opposition in the context of the  
deepening struggle for socialism was good because it clarified his  
position. “It is not strange that when a submarine goes deeper the  
pressure is increased and can free a loose screw. The weak points are  
going to leave, and I believe it is good that they leave”, Chavez said.

Chavez added “I’m completely sure there is no current within the  
armed forces that has the necessary strength to carry out a  
successful coup d’etat or to lead the country to a civil war”.  
However he explained that there would be a meeting of the military  
high command because “there is nothing innocent about this”.

Miranda Governor Diosdado Cabello also criticised Baduel, saying that  
his arguments were the same as the opposition’s, and that “I believe  
he must have met with them”. Cabello added that he never swallowed  
the story that Baduel was a hero during the 2002 coup.

A different take was provided by Chavista National Assembly deputy  
Luis Tascon, who said that it would be “stupid” to say
that this was simply about the betrayal of one person, and would not  
affect Chavismo. Tascon argued that Baduel’s treachery represented “a  
division within Chavismo”, adding that Baduel had been widely  
respected among Chavistas.

Rather than simply attacking Baduel, Tascon argued it was necessary  
to politically debate the issues at stake and that there could be  
further rumblings within Chavismo. He also pointed to the influence  
of powerful groups and business interests behind Baduel’s moves.

Immediately after Baduel’s press conference, six opposition parties,  
some of whom were previously calling for a boycott, called for  
“massive” participation in the referendum and registered at the  
National Electoral Council to officially become part of the “No”  
campaign. They were later joined by another eight, including Podemos  
— a social-democratic party that until this year had been part of the  
Chavista camp, but have moved rapidly towards the opposition as more  
radical, socialist-oriented measures have been introduced.

The opposition press were quick to point to the potential emergence  
of a new opposition leader in Baduel, changing their editorial lines  
from supporting a boycott to backing a “No” vote.

As speculation whirls around the possible ramifications of Baduel’s  
declarations inside the military, most analysts, pro- and anti- 
Chavista, agree that it is unlikely that this could lead in the  
immediate future to a military coup.

At his press conference, Baduel, who was dressed in civilian clothing  
as opposed to his military uniform, made clear he did not speak for  
the military and repeatedly emphasised the need to vote “No”, which  
seems to indicate that his statements were more aimed at giving  
confidence to those individuals in the military who are opposed to  
reforms, and not necessarily a direct incitement to rebellion. It has  
been widely reported that Baduel sought out other military figures to  
speak out at the same time, although no one was willing to accept.  
Given that strong opponents of the revolution are a small minority in  
the military, a premature move would lead to a quick defeat and a  
further purge of counter-revolutionaries.

The Venezuelan military has been undergoing a significant  
transformation since the uprising of much of the armed forces along  
with the poor majority that defeated the 2002 coup against Chavez.  
This lead to the clearing out of large sections of those who had been  
involved in the coup, with control of the military passing over from  
the capitalist elite to the Bolivarian forces. This was further  
deepened during the bosses lockout in December 2002-February 2003,  
when the armed forces, alongside the people and particularly the oil  
workers, worked to regain control of the oil industry and break the  
sabotage of the capitalist class.

However, the process is ongoing and not irreversible. As the  
revolution deepens, the possibility of increased internal fractures  
grows. Comprised of men and women who live in a society, there is no  
doubt that the full spectrum of politics in Venezuela is also  
reflected within the military. No-one doubts that US imperialism and  
the opposition retain some influence within the military, and they  
hope to deepen divisions among those that have until now backed  
Chavez. One issue in relation to this is the resistance within the  
military to moves away from the concept of a “professionalised” armed  
forces — reflected in some of the amendments subsequently made to  
Chavez’s initial proposals to reform articles of the constitution  
relating to the military.

Given Baduel’s statement that he would not rule out a future  
political career, and the timing of this declaration to coincide with  
the beginning of the official referendum campaign, it seems to  
indicate an intention to position himself as the new leader of the  
opposition. His statement’s timing, after three months of public  
silence, lends credence to the idea that this is part of a bigger  
plan around which he has been conspiring with others.

Presenting Baduel as separate from the thoroughly discredited old  
opposition forces, the aim is to win over a section of Chavismo that,  
while supporting Chavez, is not convinced, or is opposed to, the  
reforms and would prefer to abstain rather than support the  
opposition. However, Baduel’s mimicking of opposition catch-phrases,  
such as “constitutional coup”, have undermined this attempt.

Although the full impact of this fracturing of Chavismo is yet to be  
seen, it no doubt will have a greater impact than previous splits,  
including by Podemos. Baduel was widely seen as a real hero of the  
revolution, and many in the civilian left had worked closely with him  
in strengthening organisational bonds with sections of the military  
around the time of the coup. He continues to proclaim his adherence  
to “Bolivarianism” (while rejecting its radical aspects), giving him  
more potential than the existing opposition to draw behind him  
sectors of Chavismo.

Chavez revealed that in the lead-up to the presidential elections  
last year, some Chavistas were campaigning to make Baduel vice- 
president. This year, Baduel began to express publicly some  
disagreements with aspects of the Bolivarian revolution, raising  
doubts over what kind of socialism was being built and defending the  
need for a “professional” standing army in counter-position to the  
proposed reform re-organising the reserves into a popular militias.  
Chavez pointed out that behind all this are business interests and  
groups of power, fearful of losing their privileges, and that it  
reflects the ideological weakness of the revolution.

These points tend to point to the idea that Baduel’s defection,  
carried out both in collaboration with the opposition and some of the  
right-wing Chavista elements whose position is referred to as  
“Chavismo without Chavez” hopes to take advantage of confusion  
amongst Chavista ranks and conservative sections of the military. The  
aim is to crate a counterweight to the radical course that Chavez,  
and the majority of working people, seem determined to take. Part of  
the plan is to attempt to slow the revolutionary process by arguing  
for negotiations with “moderate” opposition sectors.

Baduel’s defection provides further evidence of a new campaign of  
destabilisation that is being unleashed by the opposition — with the  
backing of the US — which has so far failed in a number of attempts  
at overthrowing the Chavez government and rolling back the gains of  
the revolution.

The violent campaign by small groups of fascist students — with the  
burning of buildings and vehicles, including that belonging to the  
environment minister — continued the day after Baduel’s press  
conference. The campaign has included a number of shootings on  
university campuses. The national and international media have  
attempted to portray the students as victims of a “dictatorship”,  
either implying or outright lying that the shootings were carried out  
by Chavista forces.

One example was a highly publicised shooting in the University of  
Zulia on November 2 that was initially blamed on Chavista students.  
Once it was revealed that the death had been a result of a shoot out  
between two rival opposition parties, the overwhelmingly anti-Chavez  
private media quickly dropped the story without clarifying the truth.  
(This should at least put to rest the lie these days Chavez controls  
the media.)

Combined with the growing presence of paramilitaries on the border  
region with Colombia, this is further evidence that the opposition  
has unleashed a new destabilisation plan with the backing of US  
imperialism — with Baduel a key component. They hope to substitute  
for their lack of any mass support base with a climate of tension and  
fear — amplified by the national and international media who are  
central to this plan.

If they cannot stop the reforms from going ahead, they hope that they  
can encourage or intimidate enough people to either boycott or vote  
“No” in order to present the reforms as illegitimate, adding weight  
to argument of conservative sectors of Chavismo to slow down the  
process.

It is in this context that Chavez has described the referendum as the  
revolution’s “most important battle”, because “it is much more  
defining” of the fundamental nature of the process than previous  
struggles.

Speaking at the November 4 rally, Chavez explained that the 1999  
constitution had left in place some obstacles to the “development of  
the Bolivarian project and the construction of socialism”. The  
reforms represent a break with the “false principal that politics is  
the art of the possible … No, politics is the art of making possible  
tomorrow what today seems impossible, this is truly revolutionary  
politics ….”

“By signalling socialism as the goal … [the reform campaign] began to  
generate additional tensions in the process”, Chavez explained. He  
said that while some argue that it is necessary to reach this  
objective via slow moves, “many times these end up being slower every  
day until it reaches zero”.

“That is why the proposal is a proposal of rupture … We will never  
get to socialism with the bureaucratic trickle down from above … The  
reform overturns this concept; we will only reach socialism by  
unleashing the power of the people … That is the essence of the  
proposal.”

That is why, Chavez declared, that “our campaign strategy, our  
principal objective is to approve the constitutional reform in a  
resounding manner”. He added that popular mobilisation was “the  
vaccine against a coup, against destabilisation, against the  
oligarchy, against Bush. This is what happened” when the 2002 coup  
was defeated, it was “the people in the streets, popular  
mobilisation, and of course, our soldiers together with the people.”

He added that the “fundamental motor” of the campaign would be the  
socialist battalions, the base units of new United Socialist Party of  
Venezuela, whose explicit aim is to organise the revolutionary  
vanguard into a united fighting organisation to deepen the process.

It is clear that the battle over the next three weeks — and then  
immediately afterwards — will be crucial for the future of the  
revolutionary process. Not just for what a defeat would mean for  
Chavez and the opposition respectively, but for the process of change  
as a whole.

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #731 14 November 2007.