Venezuela: Why the opposition's name is mud

Issue 

The presidential elections, to take place on October 7, are a truly national event in Venezuela.

There are rallies to attend, public statements and press releases by the candidates, mini-newspapers containing plans for the next six years of government ― and everyone has an opinion.

The posters are the easiest to spot. On every street corner, two faces are prevalent: President Hugo Chavez and his main opponent, Henri Capriles Radonski.

Chavez's read: corazon de mi patria (“heart of my country”). Capriles': hay un camino (“there is a way”). Where this way will lead us, exactly, we are not told.

As the vote draws near, the candidate who tops the polls is difficult to miss. Chavez is a larger-than-life character, and has become well-known for his statements denouncing, imperialism, capitalism and US foreign policy.

The man who famously called George W Bush “Mr Danger” for his murderous policies of invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq looks to be on course for yet another election victory on October 7. But what about Capriles?

The Roundtable for Democratic Unity (MUD) coalition he represents is looking far from united. Just two weeks ago, four groups withdrew their support for the opposition candidate after leaked documents revealed the neoliberal agenda of his economic policies.

But what are his main campaign policies, and how has he gone about communicating them to the Venezuelan people? Does he have the potential to cause an upset?

According to articles in mainstream Western media, Capriles is a “centre-left progressive”. Indeed, this seems to be the way he is trying to present himself to voters.

Instead of attacking the missions introduced by the Chavez government to tackle healthcare and education, Capriles has recognised the immense popularity they enjoy with the millions of ordinary Venezuelan people who run them at a local level and benefit from them. So Capriles has decided that, if elected, he will keep the missions in place.

If only he were telling the truth. On August 23, an internal MUD document was leaked to the Venezuelan media, revealing his economic plans.

Mission Mercal, government-subsidised supermarkets offering families basic foods for a fraction of their usual price, are among the targets; food subsidies would be decreased by 60% over the next three years. The Grand Mission Vivienda, which aims to build 2 million houses and funds poorer sections of society to build their own housing, is to be ended.

I have been extremely impressed by the fast and efficient Metro service around Caracas. As a disabled person, I can travel on it for free – as can my brother, as someone helping me. Under Capriles, however, subsidised travel will be taken out of service. Standard prices will be raised by 5% every four months in several cities.

Even before the leaked documents, it may have been difficult for voters to believe Capriles's claims he would keep in place missions that would never have existed without the actions of the Chavez government he is so intent on attacking.

A case in point is a march of hundreds of thousands on September 22 in the capital, Caracas, which was dubbed “Missions for Chavez” in support of his re-election bid. Similarly large mobilisations have taken place in the cities of Merida and Trujillo in recent days, attracting numbers the opposition simply cannot.

Rather than policies, however, it seems to be Chavez’s personality that Capriles really dislikes, so perhaps we should analyse the latter’s own background in order to understand where he is coming from.

In 2002, during the coup that ousted Chavez from power for a grand total of two days before mass mobilsation of his poor supporters restored him, Capriles was serving as mayor of Baruta. On April 12, the Baruta police arrested the interior minister, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin.

On the same day, Capriles was part of a crowd in Baruta that attacked the Cuban embassy, cutting off water and electricity, destroying vehicles parked outside and refusing to allow the Cuban ambassador to leave.

Chavez has often been criticised for his ties with the Cuban government, which has resulted in such “atrocities” as thousands of Cuban doctors providing free healthcare for the poorest sections of Venezuelan society through the Mission Barrio Adentro.

Of course, attacking the embassy of any country is illegal under international law, but Capriles refused to accept responsibility, claiming that he helped to prevent further violence. After a lengthy investigation and more than one arrest, he was cleared of all charges under a government amnesty in December 2007.

It does not add up to a record to be proud of. Nevertheless, Capriles is determined to get his message out.

Chavez may have Plan Carabobo, his proposal for the next six years of the Bolivarian revolution, but Capriles has his Plan Venezuela, and he seems unwilling to give up without a fight.

Indeed, that is what many are now concerned about: as the April 2002 coup and the oil bosses’ strike in December of that year show, the opposition is not averse to using extra-constitutional methods to achieve its objectives.

As an electoral victory for the opposition becomes increasingly unlikely ― a recent survey of opinion polls from August and the first week of September gave Chavez an average of 51% support, but Capriles only 35% ― there are worries the opposition may decide to refuse to accept the results of the election.

In a speech delivered in Caracas last Thursday, however, Capriles claimed that he was still confident of his chances.

“...and we are going to see the victory of Plan Carabo- err ... Plan Venezuela!”

It was a slip of the tongue, but perhaps, for once, Capriles was closer to the truth than he would like to admit.

[Reprinted from The New Internationalist]



Comments

While the documents released by Wikileaks did indeed reflect poorly on the opposition (i.e. Capriles, a member of a centre-right party, is not as centre-left as he is trying to appear - surprise, surprise...) they also revealed widespread corruption and disillusionment within the Chavista camp.
(this is a link to the cable: http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09CARACAS918)

Green Left Weekly needs to be more critical of tendencies such as these within the Bolivarian Movement. A major point of opposition during the lead up to the election Chavez just narrowly won was the serious issue of violent crime and homicide rates, the cause of which Chavez has irresponsibly labeled "foreign oligarchs." But violent crime is a serious issue, and many will want a regime change if it cannot be addressed by Chavez's officials.

Moreover, the political economy of Venezeula doesnt appear to me to be particularly revolutionary. Despite nationalisations, the private sector has grown since Chavez took power. Maybe you could make an argument for the co-operative experiments (co-ops completing within capitalism) as quite radical in the sense that such a model hasn't been encouraged by governments that often, but (1) most of the co-ops unfortunately didn't last very long, from 250,000 to 20,000 (2008 analysis by Delgado) (2) there is nothing inherently post-capitalist about co-ops, even if they may play an important role fostering co-operative attitudes. The most financially successful co-op Mondragon has become utterly corporatised over the years.
Also problematic is a reality that has become taboo to mention within the Chavista camp, namely the environmental consquences of Venezuela's near total economic reliance on petroleum trade. While an economic policy that involves sharing oil wealth among the poorer sections of the population is far better than IMF shock therapy, it operates at the expence of the local and global environment, the health of those who live in the affected provinces, and Latin American environmental movements.
I suppose the central point I want to make is that in no sense is the Venezuela of today a real threat to international capitalism. While Chavez uses his country's petrolium to build alliances with other vocally anti-American nations as well as regimes like Syria, Iran, and Russia, the U.S. is set to remain his biggest trading partner.

If you like our work, become a supporter

Green Left is a vital social-change project and aims to make all content available online, without paywalls. With no corporate sponsors or advertising, we rely on support and donations from readers like you.

For just $5 per month get the Green Left digital edition in your inbox each week. For $10 per month get the above and the print edition delivered to your door. You can also add a donation to your support by choosing the solidarity option of $20 per month.

Freecall now on 1800 634 206 or follow the support link below to make a secure supporter payment or donation online.