As a citizen of Venezuela, I only want to point

at the fact that there is nothing new in what our

president and his party are willing or pretending

to do. In the last oil prices boom in the seventies, then president Carlos Andres Perez

made a far more aggressive statification of the

venezuelan economy, and even went further to a

total employment plan, wich left the country

with more than one million public servants.

The "juntas vecinales" (neighbour councils)

where promoted as the new atoms of popular

power. The government even created a lot of

state subsidiated industries, from car and telephone systems fabrication to dairy

production and book printing. Even artists

where subsidized by government branches as the

CONAC. Education and health where free then and

also had resources. But everything lasted until

the oil prices whent down. I insist, there is

nothing new here in Venezuela. Only faces and

party colors are different. The slogans hardly.

Great article and interesting comments from one and all.

This is exactly the kind of discussion about what is happening in Venezuela and about U.S. policies toward Venezuela and Latin America that is needed.

Unfortunately, in the corporate media, it is usually reduced to stereotypical comments and attempts to put all of the emphasis on President Chavez or on ways to defend our U.S. policy approach within the context of the classic "This is our backyard" position.

By the way, I'd like to recommend the following additional links to all readers:

Website of Charles Hardy - longtime resident of Caracas - who is originally from Wyoming:

http://www.cowboyincaracas.com/

The Venezuela Solidarity Network

http://www.vensolidarity.org/

A link to a letter by about 50 religious leaders (national and international) that are appealing to Mr. Paul Hewson ("Bono") and his corporate associates to stop the publication of the violent and militaristic videogame that depicts the mercenary invasion of Venezuela and the assassination of President Chavez, along with the "virtual" rape and destruction of the entire country. Bono is one of the owners of Pandemic Studios, the game's designer:

http://www.vensolidarity.org/Campaigns/index.php

An insightful article by Bart Jones:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0215-27.htm

A link to Bart Jones' upcoming biography of Hugo Chavez:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1586421352?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1586421352&adid=0ZVY6S6A1RWPC01W9RQS&

It is important for those interested to seek out ways to hear the perspective of the Venezuelan people. To do so, unfortunately, you probably need to go there or read the community media from Venezuela (in Spanish).

A lot of the Venezuelan voices that one might hear over the internet or the mainstream media (CNN en Espa�ol, Telelmundo, Univision, the commercial Venezuelan TV channels or corporate controlled newspapers) are not representative of the spectrum of voices that one might hear if you actually visited Venezuela.

Yes, Venezuela has been down the path of nationalization and having "money to burn" before. Yes, during those days there were huge public works projects, housing projects, the establishment of new public universities (virtually free), and some modest investment in public health care. However, as all Venezuelans know much of this was very flawed because of corruption, mutual political back scratching, and the fact that billions of dollars were drained off or practically given away to mutlinational corporate interests that also bought off local, regional and federal officials. During this time period, there can be no denying that U.S. government and major multinational corporate interests were calling the shots. Whatever crumbs they allowed to fall of the table for the majority of the population were just that, "crumbs". I say this from the perspective of a taxpayer in the U.S. that helped - unwilliingly - to fund all of this.

What is happening now in Venezuela is the transformation of the system. This means, in some cases, that those in positions of power, influence, and privilege are having to adjust to the new reality.

Naturally, some may resist this because they think they may think they were born into these positions. Of course, some will argue that they earned these positions with their blood, sweat and tears.

And this may be true is some cases - well a few.

The point is that people in Venezuela know which ones did and which ones didn't. They know who is in the pocket of non-Venezuelan interests or the interests of the Venezuela elite. Venezuelan citizens know this.

We, as U.S. citizens, or other non-Venezuelans not living in Venezuela, don't know this. We can pretend we do, but we do not.

It is like asking a wealthy white male in the United States whether racism still exist. Polls show that most will say "no". However, if you ask the same question to those who have been the victims of racism or classism in the U.S. the same, question, no doubt the polling results will be quite different.

If you want to know about Venezuela, ask Venezuelans, but not just those that have ready access to the internet or who can buy time on the major media outlets.

Final point: non-intervention.

What is happening in Venezuela is a matter for Venezuelans.

U.S. citizens or those in Spain, England, Colombia, or Italy have no right to say what the Venezuelans should or should not do with their country or how they should vote or what laws they should pass to protect their economic and social interests. That is a matter solely for Venezuelans - of all political persuasions to decide.

I hope that there are no Venezuelans, still today, in 2007, that think a reasonable solution is the intervention of the U.S. government (State Dept., CIA, NSA, Military) or multinational corportations (ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, TOTAL, etc.). I'm afraid there are still a few who do think this. In fact, I have heard them say this and I have seen them say this out loud on Venezuelan TV and in various venues on the internet.

As a U.S. citizen, I am strongly opposed to President Bush and all he and his friends stand for but I would never advocate foreign intervention in U.S. problems. We have problems but we have to figure out a way to solve them internally.

Cindy Sheehan has all of the right in the world to oppose the actions of her government. She has no right to tell Venezuelans how to vote or what is good for them, nor does she attempt to do so.

Venezuelans who oppose President Chavez with the same integrity of purpose as Cindy Sheehan will be applauded by many, including probably President Chavez. Those who advocate for the violent overthrow of his government will gain all of the respect that any insidious conspirator deserves.

As a U.S. citizen, I feel that I have the right to comment on the behavior of my government and of corporations that benefit from the overly favorable business climate in the U.S. that is supported - by law - by the tax dollars that our government takes from us (corporate and militaristic welfare) - even to fund unjust wars, the National Edowment for Democracy, the NSA, etc.

The Denver Post recently published a letter I wrote in which I tried to point out that the recent decision about changing the return on investment of the Venezuelan people in their ownership of their oil fields was a matter for

Venezuelan citizens to decide:

Editorial by the Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5802654

A response:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5833278

Venezuela oil policy

Re: "Oil uncertainty in Venezuela," May 3 editorial.

Your editorial describes the actions of the Venezuelan government as anti-business, implying they are unjust to the oil companies. You focus on President Hugo Chavez rather than on the fact the government is representing the interests of the Venezuelan people. The new deal means Venezuelans receive 60 percent of the revenue from the oil fields. Does this not seem fair? Why should Venezuelans be the minority investors in their own oil fields?

Of course, the foreign oil companies will stay because they believe in the potential of Venezuela. They have invested $17 billion because it holds the largest oil reserves in the world. The reality is these oil companies will continue to make money selling their services and even more on the value-added petroleum products they sell in the United States and Europe. So, after reading the editorial, one cannot feel sorry for the poor oil companies that have had to give back to the Venezuelan people a reasonable return. After all, it is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and not the Republic of ExxonMobil and British Petroleum.

_______________________________________________________

My hope is that in these public debates we can always keep very clear about the fact that the Venezuelan people approved their Constitution (1999) by a vast majority and that all sectors of society had input on this, that the Venezuelan people have elected and re-elected President Chavez in free and fair elections, elections that the Carter Center declared were the fairest they had ever witnessed, including U.S. elections and that we can also separate the "interests" of U.S. corporations and their friends in our government from the interests of U.S. citizens which are often not the same.

Sorry for the extra long comment but thought those reading this would probably be interested in more than just a �flame� or two.

All the best to one and all,

Gunnar

I agree totaly with the previous comment.

Every time some foreign power intervenes

in Latin America, it gives us a scape goat

and we can refuse to recognize our failures.

We must fail alone, so that we are forced

to face our defects and improve our magic

framed mindset.

Dear Julia,

 

I went ahead and put this reply up on my blog...

I didn't agree with much of what you had to say, but I do think you're really on to something when you note that the major fault-line between chavistas and their critics is all to do with the question of whether "democracy [can be] judged through reference to the procedural mechanics of liberal democracy."

I think that's an elegant, concise formulation. Too often, chavistas and their detractors talk past one another simply because the first lot are talking about outcomes and the second lot about procedures. Usually, though, the people who fall into this trap lack the insight to understand its nature. So kudos for calling that particular agricultural productivity enhancement aid a spade.

Y'know, this didn't use to be a problem. Time was when socialists were perfectly forthright in denouncing all our petty-bourgeois hangups about checks and balances, an independent judiciary, proper oversight institutions, human rights and all the rest of that procedural stuff as just the cultural detritus of the capitalist suprastructure, epiphenomena in a larger system of exploitation to be swept away by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That kind of explicit denunciation is not really a part of 21st century socialist's rhetorical arsenal, but anyone with open eyes can see they still think that way. We remember the sight of our 32 berobed Supreme Tribunal magistrates, on their feet, clapping and chanting pro-Chavez slogans for the cameras in the TSJ chamber. We remember the time when an opposition National Assembly member (back when there was such a thing) asked the government bench - rhetorically - whether what they wanted was a society with just one TV channel, one political party, one approved way of thinking and they replied, in unison, "�S��������������!"

I could multiply the examples ad infinitum, but there's really no point. After all, you agree: your article amounts to an endorsement of that view.

If I follow you correctly, the "procedural mechanics of liberal democracy" aren't really the defining traits of democracy: it's Chavez's mass appeal, and his followers' empowerment that makes the revolution democratic. For instance, while elites see the granting of powers to rule by decree on practically all important matters for a year and a half as a sign of "authoritarianism," (such a queer interpretation!) you explain that, since regular Venezuelans are perfectly happy with it, that's that. "Put simply, many Venezuelans think they are getting more and better democracy through '21st-century socialism', not less."

And so vox populi, vox dei...and, if I might mix my latinazos, Q.E.D to boot! Because, going by your piece, that really is the end of the argument as far as you're concerned.

All of which cast my mind back to those four deeply misunderstood Swedish bank workers in Norrmalmstorg Square. You know the ones: back in 1973, after they were kidnapped by robbers for four days, the police were shocked to find they were perfectly happy with their captors, protective even, and deeply emotionally bound up with them. But, as you'd expect, the machinery of capitalist domination wasn't about to take that sitting down. Unable to comprehend their liberation, the eggheads went to work labeling their empowerment "Stockholm Syndrome", treating it like some kind of disease.

And on what basis? After all, those big city intellectuals hadn't been in that bank with them, they hadn't lived through it. They hadn't seen the human side of the robbers the workers had shared. Not that that stopped the Stockholm Establishment from performing that act of deepest epistemological violence: labeling their liberation a disorder. Those reactionary elites, they never understand.

OK, clearly I'm having a bit of fun with some reductio ad absurdum tomfoolery here. I'm sure you think it's a totally senseless comparison. The question, though, is why? What is it that makes it senseless?

Well, obviously those bank workers were in exceptional circumstances. Their very survival was at stake, they were under extreme psychological pressure. In short, they found themselves in a situation where the pre-requisites for meaningful consent broke down. In such circumstances, the fact that a majority of them sided with the robbers is not really the point, is it? The point is that even if their support was heartfelt, it was not free.

You can see where I'm going with this. Obviously, all majorities are not created equal. Majority opinion attains democratic legitimacy only when certain conditions are met. To dispute this is to advocate majoritarianism, not democracy. And while I hate to confirm Godwin's Law, I suppose the standard reference to Hitler's undisputed and crushing popularity among Germans after 1933 is apt here.

(Actually, this is one of the oldest insights in political philosophy, so I feel a bit strange "teaching" a professor of political science about it, but there you go.)

My point, Julia, is that sooner or later serious people have to wrestle with the question of what it is that makes some majorities democratically legitimate and others not. Given the direction chavismo has taken, it's not exactly surprising that y'all would prefer to avoid a forthright discussion about this. But, ultimately, you can't assess Chavez's democratic legitimacy without serious consideration of the procedural mechanics of liberal democracy for the same reason you can't assess the legitimacy of the Norrmalmstorg Square clerks' opinions without serious consideration of the procedural mechanics of a bank robbery.

Now, in the era of the Maisanta List, in a country where unflinching partisan loyalty is demanded of all military commanders, in the era of the hyperpoliticized, all-chavista Supreme Tribunal, Fiscala, Defensora, PDVSA, DISIP, IVIC, etc. etc., as we watch RCTV being shut-down and dissenting voices ghettoized increasingly ghettoized in the media, as we see Chavez explicitly reject the possibility of independent support, and in a country where millions of poor people depend for their livelihood on access to state money that is only guaranteed if you remain politically committed to the Process, what can we really take away from Chavez's popularity? What does it tell us for sure?

It might tell us that, as you believe, Chavez has radically empowered the poor, or it might tell us that he's merely paid off and/or cowed enough people into quiescence to solidify his hold on power. The point is that we can't tell for sure, because having dismantled the procedural mechanisms of liberal democracy, Chavez has made it impossible to tell. The point is that even if majority support for Chavez is heartfelt, it is not free.

You dig?

ft

Julia

I have also analyzed your paper in my blog. Needless to say that I am not impressed as you have missed some very important factors. What you missed, well, does not compensate for the plus that you try to advance. Note, I did write my post on you without knowing of Quico open letter. they are from a very different perspective but I think that both happen to complement each other and should hopefully challenge some of your inner tenets. the link to read it if you are so inclined:

http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/05/idea-of-democracy-chavez-buxton-and.html

and the title:

The idea of democracy: Chavez, Buxton and the French election

Greetings,

Mostly young people in Southern California might say, you are all, "kind of cute." - since you make "cute" comments.

In the "U.S" cute is not a complimentary term - maybe it is the land of "To Sir With Love." - but I doubt it.

No one has dealt with the substance of the original article nor of the comments that have been posted. Everyone who has posted has just skirted around the key issues and focused on process.

Pretty weak.

You are all hiding behind some kind of, I guess, imagined intellectual superiority.

Sorry, pero el Pueblo en Venezuela has an answer for you.

This answer was first stated on April 2002.

Then, in December 2002 and January 2003 they HAD TO come forward again and do even more to keep their country alive - because we who live in La-La-Land were doing all we could to kill it.

Exaggeration.

I think not.

Challenge me on this if you would like.

Talk to me about the involvement of INTESA.

What is INTESA?

If you don't know, please go out and study and then come back.

You cannot talk about 2002/2003 without having a firm undersanding of INTESA.

Avisado-compai.

We all know that the CIA, and their friends, the NSA, the NED, the Pentagon tried to do all they could in April 2002 and Dec 2002/Jan 2004 only to be extremely frustrated by the fact that the "common people" of Venezuela simply shut the down.

Well, here we are again.

Sorry, been there done that.

You are old school.

You had your run. You will keep running but you are running - we are simply here.

It is over.

See'ya.

G p.s Phil Gunson: what is your simple explanation in the year 2007 for what happened in April 2002 - almost exactly five short years ago. Please explain.

Sorry typos - in case anyone is reading - which seems highly unlikely:

The typo's corrected:

"We all know that the CIA, and their friends, the NSA, the NED, the Pentagon tried to do all they could in April 2002 and Dec 2002/Jan 2003 only to be extremely frustrated by the fact that the "common people" of Venezuela simply shut it down."

This comment has been removed as it breached openDemocracy guidelines

Where is Phil?

Se escond?o. (he hid out)

Se fue. (he left)

Se esta escondiendo. (he is hiding)

Where in the little world of Miami-paid-off journalists is Phil Gunson?

Aparezca - cobarde. (Come on out - you coward)

Vente, compai. (Come on, Man)

Vamos a hablar. (Let's just talk)

Tenga el valor de proponer tus ideas.

(Be brave enough to offer your ideas).

G

Ms Buxton, Why do " we " not get it? Maybe you should consider at least the possibility that this is a projection on your part..Statistics and newspaper articles, visits to the site, and "intellectual" opinions do not a wise opinion make.Do you actually believe that the " economic growth" of a country can help the "poor" to live a higher quality life? This is downright laughable and naive in my opinion.It is not helping poor Americans either.I lived in Venezuela for 30 years, in all walks of life,from the poorest to rather wealthy, together with my criollo husband and children.Several years ago, I moved back to my original home in the States. My opinions are based on reality,and deep understanding of Venezuelan culture through lived experience,and not on ideas.Keep it simple dear.

A man who has divided a country of people who got along with each other and were for the most part happy, to a country with divisions and deep hatred among them on a wide scale is not an intelligent man.Sometimes people are so perfectionsitic that they try to be fair by not taking on unpopular opinions, or politically incorrect views on matters, however often times the objective truth lies far from the middle... why some people think being fair is not taking sides, I do not know.Sometimes too much formal education or vested interest in defending a viewpoint can blind us to the reality of the truth.I could tell you things concerning the Venezuelan situation that you would never dream of.

Why Ms Buxon doesn't include in her article the little fact that the elections where Chavez "won" in Dec 2006 were managed ONLY by Chavista officials? Why she is not mentioning that the Venezuelan electoral council is composed only by chavista party members? The fact that the opposition made a mistake and took the chance to go to elections with such conditions doesn't conceal the fact that the electoral systems doesn't belong to all Venezuelans but to a policial party.

And how about not mentioning a Supreme Court System who chants "Uh-AH Chavez no se va" in their sessions?

Or, the military, who has been ordered to say "Patria, Socialismo o Muerte" everytime they greet they superiors?

What is that we, who oppose Chavez seizing of the country are not getting Ms. Buxon?

You are leaving too many little details out of your apology for Chavez's dictatorship.

As one who just moved back to the U.S. from Venezuela after TEN years of living there. I have a first account of what chavismo is doing to that country. FYI, and read twice. The POOR in Venezuela, 80% of the country, are mostly IGNORANT and have no idea of what is really going on. A handfull of thugs have taken over this country and are destroying it, day by day. In 3 years Cuba will look like paradise compared to Venezuela. How can you be so oblivious to reality. Edited by openDemocracy moderator: abusive language removed.

Dear Caracas Chronicles,

(a more comprehensive version of this post can be found on my blog gringoinvenezuela.com )

I read through your response to Julia Buxton carefully, and thought about your argument. You bring up some points for reflection, but ultimately they can be refuted with basic logic. And, in fact, Buxton herself refuted everything you said in her original article.

For sake of space I sum up your argument in the following quotes of yours.

"In the era of the Maisanta List, in a country where unflinching partisan loyalty is demanded of all military commanders, in the era of the hyperpoliticized, all-chavista Supreme Tribunal, Fiscalia, Defensoria, PDVSA, DISIP, IVIC, etc. etc., as we watch RCTV being shut-down and dissenting voices ghettoized increasingly ghettoized in the media... in a country where millions of poor people depend for their livelihood on access to state money...It might tell us that, as you believe, Chavez has radically empowered the poor, or it might tell us that he's merely paid off and/or cowed enough people into quiescence to solidify his hold on power."

All of this is easily refuted. First of all, Buxton cites two INDEPENDENT surveys, one from Latinobarometro, a Chilean firm, the other from Datanalysis (which is said to be in opposition to Chavez) who both give very positive results on the majority support and approval of Chavez' politics and Venezuelan democracy in general, and completely legitimate the majority support of Chavez, as well as the 2006 electoral results.

Now, unless you want to make the claim that somehow the Maisanta List, the lack of plurality in the National Assembly, or lack of balance of powers, had an impact on an independent survey company from Chile, well, your argument dies right there.

Or, unless you think that somehow Chavez has enough control over people to make them LIE about how they feel about their own democracy when talking to a private polling firm, even one many times used by the opposition, then, again, your argument is hereby destroyed.

Perhaps Chavez would be able to coerce people to support him in a national election, but you have to be joking if you think he could coerce people to lie to independent polling firms about how they feel about Venezuelan democracy.

So we could stop right here. Your reasoning has been proven invalid. But, let's take a walk down fantasy lane for a moment and imagine that Chavez DOES have this god-like ability to control millions of people and make them lie, and vote for him over and over and over again as they have, nearly DOUBLING his votes from 3.7 million votes in 1998 to 7.3 million in 2006. (that's a lot of "cowing people into quiescence"!!)

Let's imagine that he is simply using his control over public-sector jobs and "state money" to force people to vote for him, and, as you say "merely pay off and/or cow enough people into quiescence to solidify his hold on power."

Well, if we look at Venezuelan history, and if you talk to any honest Venezuelan, they will tell you that these are not new tactics. Using public sector jobs and other forms of "buying" votes is nothing new in Venezuela, and certainly did not begin with Chavez. Forcing employees to support "the party" goes back a long way with both Copei and AD who played the same game.

So one might ask the logical question "Why weren't any other presidents in Venezuelan history able to 'cow enough people into quiescence?'"

One might ask, for example, about Marcos Perez Jimenez, who, even with his "national security" goons who violently repressed political dissidents, torturing and killing them, who shut down media, and destroyed the opposition, could not hold on to majority support during ANY PERIOD of his decade-long reign.

So, for example, in 1952, after violent repression and opposition claims of an unfair electoral environment, Perez Jimenez held national elections. He lost, getting only 28% of the vote, but he refused to recognize the results, and did not step down.

And later, in 1957, after having consolidated complete control over the state for nearly a decade, he held a national referendum on his rule. He lost again, and after releasing fraudulent results claiming victory, he was overthrown by a popular uprising.

So, if it is true, as you claim, that the executive could be so easily controlling the will of the people by force, why was Perez Jimenez unable to do it, even when he was using MUCH greater force and control? And why has no other Venezuelan president since him been able to do it either? Betancourt, Caldera, Leoni, CAP, Herrera, Lusinchi... none of them could manage to 'cow enough people'.

In fact, why has no other leader since Romulo Gallegos in 1947, in the first democratic election in Venezuelan history, been able to achieve such high approval ratings in Venezuela as Chavez? In the last election, Chavez nearly DOUBLED THE RECORD for the most votes in a presidential election in Venezuelan history. And those levels of support have been verified by numerous private, independent surveys, nationally and internationally.

So, I guess in the end, there are only two possibilities here. Either Chavez is indeed a god, with magical powers... or your argument is baseless. You dig?

Sincerely,

Gringo in Venezuela

I learned a lot from visiting Daniel�s website. Highly recommended.

Thanks to Julia�s article, I have been able to learn from you and Phil, among others.

However, what I have learned may not exactly be what they intended.

The introduction on Daniel�s website begins:

�Written from the Venezuelan provinces��

Here is the verbatim self-introduction provided by Daniel on his blog:

�Written from the Venezuelan provinces, this blog started as private letters to my friends overseas, letters narrating the difficult days of the 2002/2003 strike in Venezuela. These letters became this mix of news, comments, pictures of the Venezuelan situation. Unknowingly, I have written the diary of Venezuela slow descent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to our inner demons.�

For those who have not visited or lived in Venezuela, �from the provinces� is a kind of code to say � �Man, I am way out here in the boonies in places that are kind of scary and out of control.�

There is a common saying in Venezuela, �Caracas es Caracas y lo demas es monte y culebra�.

Literally translated this is: �Caracas is Caracas and the rest is just weeds/outback/wilderness and snakes.�

Obviously, the point of this saying is that most of the people who happen to live in Caracas feel a sense of superiority over all other Venezuelans who live in the �provinces.�

This is probably true, especially among those in the higher income brackets.

I wonder why Daniel has made a big deal of making sure we know that he is writing from the �provinces.�

There is a lot on Daniel�s website that is worth reviewing - from an anthropological or sociological perspective. I would recommend that everyone check it.

It is educational.

It represents an interesting tour of the thought of those in the elite class of Venezuela that now feel they have become the victims in a society in which they were once the owners of everything � even of the lives of the majority of the population; in other words, �slave owners,� for all practical purposes.

They are speaking out because they do not like the fact that there is a slave rebellion going on � and now they have to pay their servants and landscapers minimum wage (about $100 per month). Imagine what they were paying them before.

There were many slave rebellions in the history of Venezuela, the Caribbean, and the Southern U.S.; however, most have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

However, the Bolivarian Revolution is taking place in the light of day and the eyes of the world are watching.

It is no wonder that a process that is really transforming a system that has been stagnated for 500 years is under a very large microscope, and every little mistake is exaggerated in order to prove that the entire process has failed. Few take the time to consider the fact that the Bolivarian Movement is laying the foundation for a transformation � and probably - the salvation of Latin America � despite the short-term problems, the political infighting, and, yes, even the corruption that may go along with any administration. Just take a few minutes to consider ours (U.S.). Two Words: Halliburton, Cheney.

The elite members of Venezuelan society � those in and outside of Venezuela - are even more upset because the former �slaves� figured out how to put their claims and rights in something called a �Constitution,� and the entire revolution centers around education at all levels, formal and informal. It used to be a crime in some parts of the U.S. to teach the slaves how to read. People were hung in the Plantation South for doing so. At the end of the day, broad access to, and meaningful support for, education will be the most important legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution.

This educational process of the �El Pueblo� really makes the elite mad because it results in things like the Constitution and greater citizen participation.

The elite may have some valid criticism of the current administration in Venezuela, whether at the local, state, or national levels, but they cannot deny that regular Venezuelans now feel that they have at least chance of being full citizens in their country, but, yes, it is a work in process and some mistakes have � and will � be made.

Although, it seems that Daniel prefers a more �civilized� system in which a citizen�s rights and responsibilities are simply understood to exist and do not need to be written down on a piece of paper. Such a system may work great for those in positions of power; it probably doesn't work quite so well for those in the lower tiers of the society.

By the way, the system that Daniel describes with fondness is a system that still feels the need to have a monarchy; although, I realize some could argue the U.S. has one too, especially for the last 6 years.

Those in the old guard are even more upset that the 1999 Constitution replaces their earlier Constitution � which was basically written by the U.S. State Department in cooperation with Exxon, Shell, etc, during a time when the Rockefeller family practically owned huge sections of Venezuela, controlled much of its oil industry, and owned major sectors of its food distribution through a chain of supermarkets, which is an important detail now that there are food shortages in Venezuela. It may no longer be the Rockefellers, directly, but the infrastructure they left behind is still very much the same.

Here is a reference to an interesting book about the Rockefellers and Venezuela:

http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/rivas_missionary.html

References about the Venezuelan Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela

http://www.answers.com/topic/constitution-of-venezuela

I wonder if Daniel would argue that the1961 Constitution is better than the 1999 version.

Some people have tried to say that the 1999 Constitution was written by Hugo Chavez.

It is useful to look at who actually participated in the writing of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution at the Constituent Assembly.

Let�s list just a few names for those that may not know (all participants are listed by the in every copy of the Constitution that is published in Venezuela):

The President of the Constituent Assembly was Luis Miquilena (everyone�s favorite Venezuelan Communist); however, it later became obvious that he was in bed with the old guard elite in Venezuela. Was it a mistake for President Chavez to trust Luis Miquilena? No doubt - and President Chavez has said so many times. The point being, history shows that Mr. Miquilena was really no friend or ally of President Chavez � even then � 1998 - and he did all he could to undermine him; yet he was the President of the group that re-wrote the Constitution.

Another participant:

Alfredo Pe�a, who became the Mayor of �Greater Caracas� (the metropolitan mayor � which is practically a kind of governor with powers to arm police in a way that is similar to a governor�s power to arm a statewide national guard. Mr. Pe�a was directly involved in the April 2002 Coup. His Metropolitan Police (PM) were directly involved in creating chaos on April 11, 2002, in killing many people � opposition marchers and those supporting the government. At one time Hugo Chavez had trusted him as well � but clearly Mr. Pe�a had a different agenda � all along. It would be like George Washington trusting Benedict Arnold. Oh, wait he did:

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/arnold.html

Here is some information about Mr. Pe�a:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Pe�a

He, and his officers, had training from the current Chief of Police of Los Angeles, Mr. Bratton, who was recently responsible for the repression that took place in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles (May 1).

Mr. Bratton has sold his services as a consultant all over the world but especially in Latin America. Here are a few references to people that are somehow connected to Mr. Pe�a:

Mr. Bratton:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3149965

Alfredo Pe�a is probably hiding out somewhere in Miami with Posada Carriles:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/07/1411207

and - Patricia Poleo (probably in South Beach):

http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a20530.html

and - Gloria Estefan (one of their local Miami hosts who dabbles in politics)

http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/gloria112097.html

Do Venezuelans want the Metropolitan Police in Caracas to be run by men such as Mr. Bratton? That is what will happen if Mr. Pe�a and friends are back in charge.

By the way, the long list of people who worked on drafting the 1999 Constitution involves a very wide range of people from all aspects of Venezuelan society, including 3 participants from the indigenous community � a segment of society that had never been represented in any meaningful way before.

It would seem hard to argue that anyone in Venezuela can claim that his or her interests were not well represented in the process of drafting this Constitution.

And then it was voted on in a national election and it was overwhelming approved by a broad cross-section of society.

Daniel later wrote the following comment about the recent presidential campaign by Mr. Rosales, who is, in fact, the former and current governor of the State of Zulia (capital: Maracaibo):

�But the rally in Caracas was a huge success and really launched the Rosales movement allowing him to grow from a totally losing proposition to manage, against incredible odds, to get 37% of the vote, or so we are told.�

Mr. Rosales is the Governor of the most powerful state in Venezuela (Zulia) in terms of the oil business � and is someone who ran against President Chavez � someone who was all of his life a member of Accion Democratica (AD) � the party headed by Carlos Andres Perez, the President against which President Chavez (then Lt. Col. Chavez) led a coup attempt.

Such a person can hold a political rally in Caracas, he can have countless interviews on Venezuelan TV; his rally was even covered objectively by Venezuelan government TV.

Somehow this does not match with what I have been told by Phil and Daniel � that there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela, that the election process is totally controlled by the government, that the opposition and the media are suppressed by the government of a man that is practically a dictator, according to Phil and Daniel.

Again, the contradictions between reality and what those representing the old guard would have us believe are, well, glaring.

If President Chavez were the comic book dictator that Phil and Daniel try to portray, this rally would never have even taken place.

Mr. Rosales seems to be doing fine.

He went to Caracas. He had his rally and he ran a nationwide campaign.

He is still the governor of Zulia, the richest state in Venezuela, in a country that, according to Daniel and Phil, is ruled by President Chavez with an iron fist.

It seems Mr. Rosales got some people excited about voting for him � especially those that live in East Caracas.

He probably even won over some frustrated people that think change of any kind is good, without thinking about what the Venezuela with Mr. Rosales would look like.

Simply stated, you cannot argue that President Chavez or anyone in the Venezuelan government made any effort to impede Mr. Rosales or to undermine him.

The fact is that we all know that the average Venezuelan citizen is much more free � in all ways � than the average U.S. citizen. In fact, I have heard some in Venezuela argue that there is �too much freedom� in Venezuela � and that actually creates some of the problems in Venezuelan society. Here in the U.S., we are quickly becoming a police state and our government tries to tell Venezuelans what is best for them. Just ask the National Endowment for Democracy.

The curtailment of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms began with the administration of Ronald Reagan, and both Republicans and Democrats have reinforced it since then.

Venezuelans have become freer during this same time.

Volviendo al tema (returning to the topic), here is another quote from Daniel. Please read and analyze:

�Julia Buxton has missed the crucial point in all of Chavez programs and projects: to make sure that there is never any one that can challenge him, that there is no political structure that could allow a single citizen to rise to enough notoriety that somehow that citizen could effectively challenge Chavez. The projected communal councils who will eventually eliminate the need for elected governors and mayors, replacing them with some form of appointed link personnel, is the ultimate tool of atomization that leaves only one relevant power: Chavez. This is exactly what all religions have tried whenever they had a chance, to eliminate any possible source of dissent. The Inquisition did it so as recently as two centuries ago. Al Qaeda is doing this today to cower into submission all Islam that does not agree with its goals.�

�All Islam that does not agree with its goals?�

Is Daniel seriously arguing that the majority of Muslims all over the world feel threatened in their religious practices - or influenced in their worldview - by Al-Qaeda. If you know anything about Islam, about people who are practicing Muslims, you would know that this claim is ridiculous.

This is exactly the kind of extremist rhetoric that tries to take advantage of the lack of knowledge of the general public.

Such rhetoric fuels the fires of continued conflict and violence � and it is intellectually corrupt.

What I find most interesting about these kinds of debates (scrollingn through the comments) is the distinction between process & outcome -- which both Buxton & at least one commentor noticed.

If we define democracy by *outcome*, rather than *process*, then I think we have a serious problem. Because then we can't get past our ideological positions to really agree on a solution -- a means by which conflicts are resolved (which is how many people choose to define democracy).

I find it rather interesting that people who readily condemned a regime like Pinochet's (as it should be condemned!) for using non-democratic means to advance an agenda of societal transformation are unwilling to voice criticism of Chavez (and others) who use similar means to achieve their own goals of societal transformation.

If all we're saying is that the ends justify the means, then let's at least be honest about it. That kind of Machiavellian logic isn't what I would call democracy -- at least not liberal democracy. But, then again, some might not want to defend liberal democracy, if some of its "mechanical" niceties stands in the way of their desired goals.

Quico,

Once again, with your open letter to Julia Buxton, you have outdone yourself. You present a fascinating and well written analysis that summarizes everything you have written ever since you re-started your blog a year and a half ago (October, 2005, wasn�t it?).

It�s a great argument, except, you mix two of your favorite falsehoods to produce a wonderfully coherent but ultimately false argument. That is, you mix your persistent claim that Chavistas don�t care for rational argument and rational democratic procedures with an equally false assumption that procedural liberal democracy is the only kind of democracy worth the name.

The reason that these two arguments sound so coherent to you and to other Chavez opponents is that on the surface they make perfect sense. After all, the Fourth Republic, with all of its flaws, probably appeared to you like a very rational system that, from your perspective, at least tried to present rational arguments, that accepted the norms of liberal democracy, and that did not engage in patronage, such as hiring public servants on the basis of political affiliation. Oops, maybe that�s a bad example. OK, well, at least it didn�t have Supreme Court judges who applauded the president � they just quietly made sure court decisions went the establishment�s way.

You keep on listing, here and in earlier blog entries, all kinds of violations to common sense and to rationality and thereby you paint this wonderfully coherent picture of Chavismo as the ultimate irrational system. However, I would argue that most of the things you perceive as being systematically irrational on the part of the government are actually a lack of understanding on your part or, indeed, lapses in democratic procedure that are not particular to Chavismo, but to Venezuelan culture in general. Take, for example, the opposition�s main staple complaint of public sector hiring based on political affiliation, which is only the most blatant example of an old practice that is occasionally carried into the present (except, in the case of the Chavez era, they at least have the excuse of trying to exclude saboteurs from the public administration � what was the excuse before Chavez became president?). That isn�t to say there are no self-serving and thus illogical arguments in government circles � there are plenty, but that�s nothing new for politicians anywhere. Your silly analyses of Chavez�s economic policies are an excellent example of a determined effort not to try to understand the other side�s actual reasoning.

My point is, Chavismo is not about rejecting rationality and democratic procedure � that is just your rather distorted interpretation of what is happening and your way of not engaging in the other side�s arguments. Instead, Chavismo (actually, I prefer the term �Bolivarian Revolution� or �BoRev�) is indeed about questioning liberal democracy, which is not synonymous with democracy as such, as you imply. That is, the BoRev does not see liberal democracy as being the only form democracy can take in this day and age. Instead, it proposes to complement liberal democracy with participatory democracy, so as to make elected representatives more accountable. This is an enhancement of democracy, not its weakening.

Your final argument, that �even if majority support for Ch�vez is heartfelt, it is not free,� is brilliant, but fundamentally flawed because it is based on two falsehoods: first, that Chavez supporters are �paid off and/or cowed into quiescence� and, second, that Chavez has �dismantled the procedural mechanisms of liberal democracy.� I can�t go into why I think these arguments are false here. However, you make your argument almost irrefutable when you say, �you can't assess Ch�vez's democratic legitimacy without serious consideration of the procedural mechanics of liberal democracy� because you keep equating democratic legitimacy with the procedures of liberal democracy (Marcuse�s One Dimensional Man says hello). There are other and better democratic procedures than those of liberal democracy that can provide democratic legitimacy � one just has to try to understand them.

P.S. The above comment was directed to the comment from CaracasChronicler, who also goes by the name of "Quico".

Ay Greg...

I'm sorry, but I think that's pretty weak. The whole viudas del puntofijismo shtick was seldom more than a glorified ad hominem attack anyway. Me? I think the old regime shared many of the undemocratic, clientelistic traits of the Ch�vez regime, and wrote as much in the very first political pieces I ever penned - we're talking 1996, when most current foreign philochavistas had yet to notice Venezuela existed. My first stint in Venezuelan politics was as a pre-PPT split Causa R activist. So gimme a break, man, you can do better than that.

And it's not just me - for years and years before Ch�vez came to power there was an overwhelming consensus that the old Punto Fijo model needed a radical overhaul to democratize it and make it perform better. It's easier to forget now, but even back in 1993 people voted for Caldera for that reason: he was running on the chiripero ticket, as a rupture-with-the-past candidate. It's easy to ridicule that pose, but it does make it clear that as far back as that you could hardly find anyone in the country who thought Punto Fijo was working. The whole line of attack is really just the Nth Ch�vez fabricated disqualification - meant to forestall debate by impugning dissidents' right to express their ideas in the first place.

So I think that's very weak. But weaker still is this generic questioning of Liberal Democracy, for two reasons.

First-The aspersions cast on liberal democracy are always offered in highly abstract terms, in academic language, making a determined effort not to get bogged down in the specifics of what the charge entails. But lets get specific here for a moment: which liberal democratic norms is it that you have a problem with? Is it the independence of the judiciary that you don't like? Are you happy with the sequential purges we've seen in the supreme court, with the permanent-temporary status of most judges, with the firing of those who fail to toe the party line? Or is it the conceptual separation of "state" and "government" that you don't like? So are you therefore happy with the transformation of the armed forces into a partisan militia, a process that's reached such dizzying extremes that military academy cadets are now meant to routinely salute their officers saying "Patria Socialismo o Muerte"? Or is it the ideal of impartial oversight institutions that's wrong with liberal democratic norms? Do you care to explain why the country is made more democratic when the contralor�a, fiscal�a and defensor�a are put in the hands of openly partisan hacks?

So long as the debate is nice and abstract, the whole dismissal of liberal democracy can sound sort of noble, even - it's when you get nitty gritty about it that you realize it really means little more than advocating uncontrolled, unrestrained, personalized power beyond the reach of the rule of law.

Again, Buxton and yourself - as well as most of the solidarity press - seem plainly unwilling to face these realities forthrightly. And we get the feeling that the reason you constantly invoke the we're-more-popular-so-we-must-be-right shtick is that you realize that any detailed appraisal of the institutional dynamics of the chavista state would make its claims to be democratic look like the sham they are.

The second reason I think this sudden rejection of the procedural dynamics of liberal democracy is so unacceptable is that most of the rules now being openly flouted are not principles I pulled out of my ass. They're rules that feature prominently in the 1999 constitution - you know the one - the constitution Chavez championed, the constitution his supporters drafted singlehandedly, the constitution for years he called the best in the world, the constitution he assured us again and again was "his only project."

And here we see what a monumental hustle chavismo has been...because Greg, I didn't force chavistas to put an article in the constitution banning the political militancy of military officers, they did it themselves! AD didn't invent the article banning political discrimination in the civil service, this was their idea! It wasn't the State Department that forced them to put in an article saying the Prosecutor General had to be absolutely political impartial, it was chavistas who wrote the damn constitution that way. So in flouting all these norms they mock the people who lined up in December 1999 to vote to approve the constitutions. They lied to them, they lied to all of us, with this constitutional charade...

Well, like you say, I'm sure a debate like this could keep going on and on forever - something I'm not particularly opposed to, actually. It's definitely less frustrating doing it this way than with a 150 word limit, though!

Quico (CaracasChronicler),

I�m afraid you completely misunderstood both of my main points, which is perhaps my fault, since I tried to keep it short.

First, my comparison with Puntofijo was not meant as a disqualification of you. Unlike many other debaters on Venezuela (both Chavista and anti-Chavista) I only care about people�s arguments, not their backgrounds. I don�t know where you got the idea that I was implying you were a viuda del puntofijsimo and that this disqualifies you or your arguments. Actually, I think you wrote an excellent piece that showed how dysfunctional the puntofijismo patronage was (http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2003/02/petrostate-that-was-and-petrostate.html).

No, my point was merely to remind readers (and you) that all of the terrible accusations you throw against the Chavez government�s patronage tendencies has its roots way deep in Venezuelan culture and I would even say that it seems that Chavez has managed to make Venezuelan political culture less patronage-based than it used to be. Obviously you would disagree with me on this point, but then we�d have to make specific comparisons to hash this out. My point here is merely that you cannot understand what is happening in Venezuela today in isolation from its past and its political culture and that the only relevant measure of progress or regression in this regard is the immediate past � so it has to be brought it.

Second, you also totally misunderstand my (and in my opinion Chavismo�s) questioning of liberal democracy. It�s not that most principles of liberal democracy, such as separation of powers, rule of law, human rights, etc. are wrong. Rather, what is questioned is whether liberal democracy is the best democracy we can come up with. More specifically, what Chavez and others question is whether democratic representation, which is also part of liberal democracy, is the best way to go. Instead, Chavez et al. propose to complement representation with participation and with direct democracy. This is the only part of liberal democracy that is being questioned and is currently being implemented (and might eventually replace representation). This questioning of democratic representation has a long history and Chavismo is merely connecting with this critique.

Your claims about Chavez not believing in or undermining all the principles of liberal democracy would be serious indeed, if they were true. I would say each and every one of the points you raise is either false or an exaggeration of a problem. For example, you repeat the opposition claim that there is no separation of powers. I�ve written in detail about this elsewhere, but the mere fact that Chavez�s supporters control all branches of government does not prove that Chavez does not believe in separation of powers or that there is no separation of powers. If that were true, then you�d have to admit that some of the supposedly most exemplary liberal democracies in the world have little separation of powers. Until recently Republicans controlled all three branches of the U.S. government and in parliamentary systems there is no real separation between executive and legislative anyway. The real point here should be: can Chavez actually control (i.e. dismiss or otherwise unduly influence) the other branches? That he can do so has never been proven � it�s always just guilt by association � his supporters are there, therefore he controls them. That�s a false argument. Do you control your friends/supporters?

Ok, I could go on like this with all of the examples you bring up. Perhaps I should mention one where I agree with you, which is that the military should not display partisan support for a political tendency. Indeed, here the government displays tone-deafness about why the military should not be partisan. On the other hand, I have a hard time making a big deal out of this issue because I also understand the Chavista argument that the military should be on the side of the people and to them socialism means just that, no more.

Finally, I agree with you that the argument �we�re the majority therefore we�re right� is a bad/false argument. I never made that argument in my response to you. Actually, minorities in the U.S. would be appalled with such an argument. However, the problem is that to Chavistas and to Venezuela�s poor majority the counter-argument, �we�re the minority, respect our rights� sounds like, �we�re the minority that should govern�. In other words, too often we are talking right past one another, where one side�s complaints about violations of minority rights sounds like a cover for claims to the right to govern and the rejection of those complaints sounds like dictatorship to those who feel like their rights have been violated. How do we get past this? My guess is we need to get down from the abstract level of liberal democracy or no liberal democracy, to actual problems, such as, is the prosecutor independent of the executive or not? That of course, will turn into an even longer debate�

Caracas Chronicles,

We all know why you aren't happy with Venezuelan democracy. We can also tell that you don't really understand the conflict going on in Venezuela either. Let me try to explain it very briefly.

One of the problems with liberal democracy historically in Venezuela has been its tendency to not be able to overcome the influence of the wealthy commercial sector in its policies. This commercial sector historically lived off the importing of goods, causing direct conflict with any government attempts to break dependency on imports. These business sectors always have managed to have a very big influence on the government.

The conflict today is that this sector no longer has any influence in the government, and they have mounted an incredibly vicious attack on the Chavez regime for just that reason. (there is no surprise that FEDECAMARAS was largely behind the 2002 coup and the 2003 oil strike.) This sector has also changed, becoming more internationalized and connected to international capital.

Much of the Chavez demand for party loyalty within his own government has to do with the level of attack that he has come under, much of it funded and organized by the State Department. The loyalty in the military is obviously in an attempt to prevent any destabilization plans. (You might look at recent evidence that a National Guard Capitan was conspiring to kill Chavez, along with his dad who has close ties to the CIA)

Also, remember that members of the military took part in a failed coup attempt, kidnapping the president and keeping him locked up for 2 days. I think if Chavez were not assuring total loyalty to the government within the military it would be pretty stupid on his part.

But, again, your analysis has a gaping hole in it. You might ask the question, where is the political opposition to block any moves that they don't agree with? After all, most of the reasons that you use to claim that liberal democracy is being dismantled have to do with the total domination of the government by pro-Chavez parties.

Who is to blame for that? You might talk to the opposition parties. You might ask them why they refuse to participate in elections for the National Assembly. You might ask them why they can't even put together a political program worth talking about.

The fact that the opposition is totally absent in the Chavez government is their own fault. They didn't participate in 2005 elections for just that reason. They don't believe in the democratic route.

In fact, they withdrew from the 2005 elections precisely so people like you could make the arguments you are now making. That was also the strategy in Nicaragua with the Sandinistas. The same strategy was used in Haiti with Aristide. Its easy to make the government look totalitarian when the opposition refuses to participate.

So really, the people you really should blame for the lack of a "balance of powers" are the pathetic opposition parties in Venezuela. There is no reason why they can't develop a decent political program, and run in the elections. After all, they have practically all the private media behind them. They got nearly 4 million votes in December. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have representation in the government. They are the ones who chose to not have representation.

And they did it so guys like you could make the criticisms that you do.

But again, can you explain why most Venezulans ARE satisfied with their democracy?

And, again, let me just ask you one more time to see if you want to keep avoiding the question.

Can you back up your original claim as to how Chavez coerces support for him when the indicators that we are using to show that support are private independent polls that have no connection to the government?

How does Chavez coerce people to lie to independent polling companies about how they feel about Venezuelan democracy?

Caracas Chronicler�.

It would be nice if the checks balanced, if there existed a place where the contractual sovereignty you fantasize happened all at once and for always, a million simultaneous picnics, a gigantic immanence of sensibilities and literacies convoked, ratified, and procedurally baptized there at the constitutional origin of all things, liberalisms �peace that passeth all understanding�. It�s a story good for campfires and Sunday mornings, this yarn spun about the freedom of freedom, its absolute, categorical distinctness from coercion, history, violence, exclusion, inheritance, etc. That your definition is properly pre-sociological, with not even a trace of a sense for the presence on the planet of a dominant cultural or political economy (you seem to find capitalism as a concept quaint?) would probably not matter were it not for the resonance of this bad concept in the crazy midwifery of the Pentagon, committed as it claims �to giving birth to the middle east at any cost�. �Liberalismo o muerte� as you might say, or rather, in the case of Iraq, �Neo-Liberalismo Y muerte�. Quico, combining orthodox cheek--a form of rhetorical �weightlessness� and unaccountability which dances into the Latin so as to obscure the rosary, the profound sycophancy, at the heart of the brain of your convi