In Caracas, Green Left Weekly’s Kiraz Janicke spoke to Gregory Wilpert about the developing revolutionary process in Venezuela. Wilpert has been living in Venezuela for five years and is the editor of venezuelanalysis.org, an independent website dedicated to disseminating English language news and analysis about the current political situation in Venezuela. He is also the author of Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Presidency, due to be published by Verso Books in early 2006.

According to Wilpert, the Bolivarian revolution led by President Hugo Chavez is “really crucial and important as an experiment, as an example, as a place to learn and as an inspiration”.

Venezuela is “a place of world historical importance right now”, said Wilpert. “I think that’s why the word has to get out about it, because most people don’t really know what’s going on and the mainstream media aren’t really doing a good job of reporting on it.”

Wilpert claims that “Venezuela is the only country in the world, as far as I know, where the government is really trying to [work] its way towards something that is anti-capitalist, something non-capitalist. [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez talks about it being socialism of the 21st century. Even though it’s not defined exactly which way this process is heading, it’s really the only country in the world that is trying to do something different.”

Chavez and Venezuela’s social movements are “having a big impact on the rest of Latin America”, inspiring and helping left parties and governments across the continent, explained Wilpert, “because it shows that an alternative is possible, that something can be done”.

“Historically, I think people have been very timid, either because they’re afraid of intervention from the US or the IMF or World Bank. Chavez’s example has shown a tremendous amount of courage and bravery really, to go against these odds.”

However, a key internal problem facing the Venezuelan revolutionary process, Wilpert argued, is “its over-dependence on Chavez. I think the movement here would probably fall apart into a number of different factions if it weren’t for Chavez.” Wilpert described Chavez as the “glue that unites all the different factions and strands of the movement”. He sees this as a “really serious problem, because if Chavez were assassinated — which is a real possibility, because there are radical elements in the opposition that realise that’s their best chance of stopping the project ... If that were to happen, the country would descend into chaos. And related to that is, I wouldn’t say a personality cult per se, but there are some tendencies in that direction.”

Another problem identified by Wilpert is “a tendency towards patronage and clientelism that is an inheritance from previous governments. It’s very strongly ingrained in Latin American culture, actually it’s very strongly ingrained in every culture in the world ... they haven’t really figured out a way to overcome that.” Wilpert cited the signature list from the August 2004 presidential recall referendum as an example. “Even though Chavez has said you can’t use that list for keeping people out of jobs or whatever, it has been used. I don’t think it’s a government policy, but I do think that government supporters have used that.” This “puts breaks on the project really being inclusive”, Wilpert said.

A third problem, according to Wilpert, is “the lack of a clear political program. It can be an advantage in the sense that it allows a lot of space for openness, for experimentation, for trial and error, but it’s a problem also in the sense that all too often the government lacks a clear sense of direction, so it’s a double-edged sword.”

Wilpert believes that what “they should’ve done is build a real solid party. I think Chavez and the Bolivarian movement needs something like that, an organisational infrastructure, and they don’t really have it. They have the MVR [the Movement for the Fifth Republic, formed by Chavez to contest the 1998 election], but it’s very loosely organised, mostly centred around Chavez as an electoral vehicle, so it’s not going to have much staying power.”

“This lack of a clear program is reflected in the social movements. There is a good dynamic, but it takes time to develop organically, and it could go in the wrong way or it could still fail, but it’s a slow process.”

The ebb and flow of the revolutionary process in Venezuela has thrown up different forms of organisation for popular participation, Wilpert explained. “Participatory democracy was supposed to be embodied to a large extent in the Urban Plannification Councils, but these have basically not functioned at all. There are some areas where these are functioning, but not in Caracas, which is so important as an example and as a centre of power, that one can almost declare the whole project a failure. The other example which has died off are the Bolivarian Circles, which have become absorbed into the Urban Land Committees.

“The Bolivarian Circles didn’t work because they were contradictory. On the one hand they were partisan organisations that were supposed to support the government, but they didn’t have a national infrastructure to organise around or to provide them direction, and they had this other mandate to organise community self-improvement. And that I think is a contradiction. You cannot be both a partisan organisation and say that you’re going to work on community self-improvement, because anybody who is part of that community and wants to work on community improvement, but doesn’t believe in Chavez or his project, is not going to be able to participate.”

According to Wilpert, part of the reason for the failure of the Urban Plannification Councils and the Bolivarian Circles is that it’s “very difficult to create a national organisation or movement from the top ... for it to be effective it has to grow organically”.

Wilpert argued that “probably the most practical instance of participatory democracy in Venezuela right now” is the Urban Land Committees. “Urban land reform has become one of the most important catalytic factors for mobilising people in the barrios, both behind Chavez, but also for improving their own neighbourhoods. The fact that people have to form these land committees of 100 to 200 families in order to acquire title to their land has mobilised communities throughout the country to organise themselves. The connection to the government is just to get the title, but they’ve become much more than that — they’ve become a social movement essentially, which can be a forum for formulating their own demands on the government.

Wilpert also pointed to the example of the social missions (which address literacy, health, food provision, culture and other areas), which are organised “to get as much input as possible from the community themselves, to involve people”.

“I think that’s a completely different way, a novel way, of doing government, which serves as an important guidepost for how one could maybe reorganise the government as a whole.”

From Green Left Weekly, September 21, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

Tools

• Bookmark This Page
• Print This Page