Politics In Venezuela
In early September I went to Venezuela
to give a talk about economic vision at a conference there. I stayed a
week, and with Greg Wilpert interviewed numerous people about the
Bolivarian Revolution. These interviews will appear in coming days and
weeks on ZCom.
Here, then, is an extensive interview we did about the polity in Venezuela,
held with Julio Chavez, Mayor of Carora and prominent activist in all
dimensions of the Bolivarian Revolution, especially concerning the
Communal Councils.
– Michael Albert
To get started, how would you say being a Bolivarian Mayor is different from being a Mayor before 1998?
When
we first came into office, and before that, the Mayor was protecting
the interest of the oligarchy, not the people. Only a handful of
families was in control of the land, finances, communications,
agriculture, and all the assets. And they also upheld and were within
the Religious hierarchy. They excluded the majority of the population
from determining the life of the society.
They
even had clubs where they would meet that only family members could
enter – and even the Church had sections and seats that were reserved
for these family members.
Indeed,
up until 1960, this small group of families controlled everything in
town. When there was a marriage, the first night the owner of the
hacienda sponsoring the wedding would even have the right to spend the
night with the bride.
There
was for 45 years, during the democratic period, government protecting
the interests of the local land owning families. Assets were privatized
in a few hands.
When
the Bolivarian government came into office, things began to change. The
head of the Catholic Church of the municipality, for example, a local
Bishop, was until then receiving a lifelong pension from the Major and
was cousin of the owners of the largest Hacienda.
We
won the Mayoralty without being part of the traditional political
structures. We defeated the President's candidate and also the
candidate of the Oligarchy. I was supported by the various social
movements and some very left parties, and became Mayor.
When
we came into office one of the first decisions was to take away the
pension of the Bishop and this elicited attacks from the Church.
Everywhere Church officials put up signs saying Mayor Chavez is
attacking the Church. Every Sunday during mass, the Church would attack
me as the centerpiece of their preaching.
This
was because previously the Government and Church worked together hand
in hand, as with the Pension for the Bishop. So our removing the
pension was an important step because in that way we not only began to
reduce the sway of the Oligarchy in general, we also opened the door to
other religious groups to participate – which was also mandated in the
new Constitution.
One
of the other things that we did was to take control of the Municipal
Enterprises which had previously been privatized and were in the hands
of the prior Mayor, a member of the Oligarchy, in that way ensuring
that the revenues of those enterprises would go to the public, the
municipality, not the elite.
We
took those operations over with the help of their workers who had been
very exploited, not even getting a minimum wage much less benefits they
should also have gotten.
There
was a slaughter house, for example, which with the help of the workers
we took over, thereafter incorporating the workers in decision making,
improving their conditions, raising their wages, etc.
Another
thing that we did was regarding the land where we started to examine
the ownership titles and discovered that the Oligarchy was claiming
land that had never been theirs, and so the Mayor's Office began taking
that back for the citizens.
Even
in the cities the Oligarchy had taken control of much land, but now the
people are retaking control of it. Part of the town was an exhibition
area for cattle, under control of the land owners, which we also had to
take back.
There
were even rivers, in the past, that the Oligarchy had redirected for
their personal benefit, giving their Hacienda's and sugar plantations
the best water. So another thing we had to do was to redirect the
rivers back to their original routes so the populations in the towns
down river were no longer cut off from water.
There
are many more examples. We had to move from a very statist capitalism
toward people having control and power and it was and still is a rocky
path.
All
kind of radicals and leftists use the phrases `participatory democracy'
and `self management' but they very rarely explain what they mean. So,
what do these terms mean to you in the political sphere of life? I
would like to know what is guiding your thinking – philosophically, for
the moment, more than examples.
For
me participatory democracy has to do with using knowledge and
consciousness. It is a process that starts with the political formation
and includes building of consciousness and then taking action. It is
more than just saying people should make decisions, but instead
involves a real transformation of the people involved so they can make
decisions.
To
be involved in participatory democracy people need to gain knowledge
and then to take action. To give the people all the tools necessary so
the people can become the state, knowledge, technology, etc.
You
described earlier how before the Bolivarian victory a small number of
Oligarchs had almost all influence, and most people had none. So the
question arises, what is the appropriate level of influence for people
to have?
Previously
you couldn't talk about having the knowledge and tools, so you couldn't
talk about having influence, except for the elite families, many of
whom studied abroad, in the U.S., etc.
The
elite families had all the knowledge. In effect they were representing
the people, but were serving mainly themselves. So now, we are trying
to give all the tools and knowledge to the people so they can have a
say.
But
even if you do that, it is still true that sometimes you should have
more say, or sometimes someone else should. Well, how do you feel about
this norm? The idea that you should have a say in decisions, an
influence on decisions, in proportion to the degree you are affected by
them?
Yes,
but first of all we want to transfer knowledge to the people. We have
different levels of assemblies. We have assemblies that name delegates,
and these delegates then name council members, which is known in Venezuela as the council for public planning. Now
we try to make sure that everyone is discussing and consulting on
decisions that were previously made only by the government.
Previously
it was just the government that made decisions like a cabal. Now
decisions are made in the open, publicly, after people have a say.
The
Ministry of popular power, I think it was, said there were 19,000
communal councils in 2007. Where did they come from? In 1997 there were
none. Ten years later there are 19,000. How did they come into
existence?
Basically,
when the President first launched the proposal for Communal Councils,
they had to be formed. The national government, state government, and
very local government, existed, as before. The President then put out
as a goal for them establishing 50,000 communal councils.
So
according to the law, they were supposed to form throughout the
country, with 200 to 300 families each in cities, and 20 to 40 in rural
areas. And then calculating it would take about 50,000 to cover the
country.
So
you want to know what distinguished whether some area developed a
communal council or not? A big variable was support, or not, from the
local Mayors.
Some
Mayors don't understand the importance, or don't like the idea, and
don't try hard to develop the councils. Some feel like the councils are
a knife at their throat. They feel like the President is going to deal
with the communal councils rather than the mayors and governors, so
they are being reduced in their power.
I
think that as Mayors we need to realize that developing communal
councils is the way we need to go, because this is what the new
constitution is mandating for creating participatory democracy. But if
you look at our local region, we have a population of about 200,000
people and so far have 523 communal councils in comparison with another
nearby area that has about 2 million people but only about the same
number of councils, so it is only one tenth as effective.
Did
the call to create the councils mean that the Mayor's Offices should
send out organizers to help people join together into these communal
councils?
Yes,
that is basically the way it worked. I myself, and of course others
from our office too, went out to help people get together. And when the
President later created a Commission for Communal Councils, I was the
only Mayor put on it because we had been so energetic in our efforts.
So for some Mayors the path you suggest feels as if it were suicide, going out and contributing to their own decline.
Yes, exactly.
Let's
look at your attitude. Suppose communal councils here come up with
something you don't like. They have something they want implemented,
and you want it not to be implemented. What happens?
The
Communal Councils are an expression of the territory where people live,
and within that area they are the natural leadership.
In
some communal councils our candidates, ones supporting the revolution,
were not elected but instead anti-Chavistas. So for example, in our
area there is a communal council that belongs to the Oligarchy,
essentially. They aren't with us, but they have invited us to meetings
where we discuss their concerns.
But
I am trying to understand not just inclusion, but power. When the
Mayors think that it is suicide to build the communal councils, I
assume it is because they think that the Communal Councils will be able
to over rule them and be the real seat of power. Is that your vision?
Is that what you want to see happen?
Yes, and I will give you an example. Here in the town of Carora
there are revenues from three different sources, one having to do with
oil, one with taxes, and the third is a fund from the state and general
revenues. But finally 100% of all revenues are going into one fund and
the regulations say we have to give some of that to the 17 parishes
that are part of the municipality. So the investment budget is about 2
million dollars for the municipality.
The
state we are in has nine municipalities. About 40% of the territory is
the largest one. Ours is smaller. There are four phases for
construction of local public power. First the local budgets, the
participatory budget, the communal councils, the overall commune or
constituent assembly. And we are creating a constitution for the
municipality, following the example of the national level, locally.
When the new constitution was created the old ordinances of the
Municipalities became obsolete. And now we are working out new rules,
not just discussed by specialists and lawyers, but discussed by the
population.
So
the entire fund we take to the public planning council based on the
communal councils. All of the parish councils participate in this.
Depending on the size, territory population, and population density,
the parishes receive a proportion of the total budget.
So
here in the capital, Carora, we do a diagnosis of the needs of the
particular parishes. And so, for example, I thought the main problem
for Carora itself, where I am Mayor, was holes that marred the roads.
But the assembly said the main problem was not the pot holes but
instead other problems of the communities. I got upset and asked to
speak in the assembly. In the old days, of course, the Mayor just did
what he wanted, but no more. So I went to speak to the councils and
asked why when we were being attacked in the local press for not fixing
the roads, they wanted us to spend the money on something else.
So
I went and we had a four hour debate – me as a citizen of the city, and
also as the Mayor – with them explaining why fixing the potholes was
not a priority. After the four hours, among the priorities that were
set up – the task I wanted, was set as third. Sewage was put higher,
first. They told me, okay, you will only asphalt these roads we have
picked, and they listed the ones the Communal Councils agreed with the
transportation companies were really in need of repair, but not all the
others I had wanted to repair. In the end, though the roads were for me
priority one, for them they were of much less importance.
So you lost the decision, but you were happy about the process and carried out the result?
Yes.
Of course. And I realized that one thing is what the media, the
opposition, says, and another thing is what people really need.
Roughly, how many Mayors are there in Venezuela?
337.
Out of the 337 how many have your attitude?
I have more fingers than the number of Mayors who see things as I do.
So the goal for the number of Communal Councils is 50,000 and you have 20,000 now, roughly.
Yes, but I think there are more like 30,000 by now.
And the goal is that those Communal Councils will have power like they do here, in your locale?
Yes.
How is it going to happen? If over 95% of the Mayors will obstruct it, how will it happen?
In
every community there are promoters for the communal council that come
directly from the Presidency. Chavez sends them. So that is good. But
there are some Mayors that provide 20% of the budget to the communal
councils, some 50% but very few do a 100%, like here in Carora.
There
are also accusations that some Mayors appoint or support council
members so that they can then manipulate the whole councils.
But
despite opposition from Mayors, the President has appointed a
commission, or mission, called April 13th, which is about forming
communes, which are combinations of communal councils. and the mission
goes around and tries to ensure that things are going properly.
Recently,
for example, there was a problem where the President had appointed a
member of the Communist Party to be a minister of the communal
ministry, and he went around and promoted only the councils that had
communists prominent. So that was corrected, and President Chavez
replaced that Minister with a different leader, who was previously
prominent in the youth organizations, the Francisco Miranda Front,
which consists of youth who were partly organized via Cuba and who are
directly tied to the President's office, not any party, and now with
their leader in charge of building the councils, things have been
greatly improved.
In
the City the councils are supposed to have 200 – 400 families, is that
right? Are they succeeding in forming them there, and especially in Caracas, or are people slow to participate in them?
There is still a long way to go.
What are the obstacles in Caracas?
I think it is the complexity of the place itself. To Caracas people come from all over the country. It has no special identity of its own. It is like a sum of all the complexities of Venezuela.
For example, I was invited to give talks to communities in Caracas
about communal councils and I had the feeling that people do not
identify with their communities. People often get up at 4 AM to travel
and there is very little connection of people to their local community.
It is much easier to organize the councils in rural than in urban areas.
Is
the President's attitude to the communal councils like yours? That is,
if you had the 50,000 councils in place and they developed a program
and urged that they wanted it, and the President thought it was wrong,
and he made his case to them, and they said no, you are wrong, we are
right, would he feel like you that that was a great success in that the
councils were running the country?
Yes.
We respect the President tremendously. So having more information he is
probably thinking a bit ahead of us. And he respects the opinions of
the communities, so he is likely to agree. And if he differs, often the
people will understand and their view may change.
So,
for example, the Ministers may bring a proposal to the President and he
accepts it as good, but the councils then say it is a bad idea – and
then he looks to see their views, and he often changes the proposal.
Yes,
but in the case of Carora you said if you and the communal councils
disagreed, ultimately, they would decide. They respect you. They think
you are a smart guy. You make your case brilliantly. And they still say
that you are wrong. And that is healthy, you say, because of course you
can be wrong.
So
maybe the President is a little smarter and a little more eloquent, I
don't know. But he can still be wrong. And I would like to know what
happens if the communal councils say he is wrong? Do they have actual
power, or do they just have great access?
From
everything that I have experienced the President has asked us to
respect the decisions of the Assemblies. But surely the President, a
product of the military and quite disciplined, is always concerned that
there is a clear line of command – but whenever there is an issue of
the community, he doesn't get involved in that.
The voting age in Venezuela
is 18 right now. Suppose the communal councils, one of them, yours,
comes up with a proposal that it should be 16. Now all the communal
councils discuss the proposal and they all decide that they think the
voting age should be 16 in all elections, including the presidential
election. Suppose the President thinks it should be 18. He comes and
makes his case, and they still think it should be 16. Is it going to be
16 or 18?
That
happened in the sense that when they had a discussion in the communal
councils of the voting age law for the councils, the resolution from
the government was that it should be 18. In the discussions, however,
the people wanted 15 as the age. The president wanted 18 but the people
made it 15.
So when I asked earlier who decides if they disagree, why didn't you just say, right away, the councils decide?
Right
now the councils are making larger decisions on the level of the
commune and the President is giving the general direction for the
deliberations.
I
don't want to leave this without being clear, if you don't mind.
Suppose, there are 50,000 councils, so we are talking about in the
future. They are functioning well. The President goes to Iran. He wants to make a treaty with Iran. The councils discuss it and don't want the treaty. Now what happens?
(Laughing)
It can't be something that linear, that easy, because what counts is
also the knowledge that people have. So one would have to presuppose
that the people have that knowledge.
So the 50,000 councils don't want the treaty and they invite the President in to make his case to them.
But foreign policy is directed by the President, not the communal councils, so this wouldn't happen.
That sounds like the U.S….
In the case of Carora, the councils have made some treaties directly between the municipality and Iran. We signed a memorandum of understanding between Venezuela and Iran
including specifying construction of cement plants, petrochemical
plants, etc. In our discussions we wanted one of the milk plants to be
constructed in Carora and it would belong to the community.
People
designated by the community councils would operate it. The communal
councils would determine the whole management of the company. The
President defines the foreign policy of the country, but then we do the
local implementation.
I understand. But in the U.S. about 70% of the country is against the war in Iraq. If there were 50,000 councils in the U.S.
about 70% of the membership would be against the war. Bush, McCain,
Obama and everyone else who has been President says it doesn't matter
what the public wants. The rationalization they give is that they have
the information. They are the experienced ones. They know what is going
on in the world. We on the left say that is a pile of crap. (a) They
are not so much smarter, or even smarter at all. (b) If there was
information they have that was important, they should distribute it. It
seems to me if the communal councils are to be the primary power, then
after due consideration and discussion and debate, Venezuela shouldn't
be able to go to war, nor do much else, against the will of the
communal councils, even on foreign policy.
Sure,
but there is an important difference. You have Bush. We have Chavez.
And we have a constitution that we all approved of. And our
constitution doesn't even allow us to initiate war in other parts of
the world. This would never be our foreign policy because it would
violate the constitution.
The
350 or so other mayors, when they describe their local approach to the
communal councils, I bet they say, we know more, we have more
information, we have more experience, we are interested in hearing from
the councils what they think, but we want to keep the power when we
disagree. In contrast, you say, I think maybe I know more, I think
maybe I have a better idea, more experience, but I really do believe in
participatory democracy, so I agree that I should be subject to the
will of the councils. And honestly, all I am asking, is why it is any
different at the level of the President than it is at the level of the
Mayor.
We are in the process of construction…
That's why I said after the 50,000 councils were in place. Did you understand all this time we have been discussing the future?
Right
now we have some structures in place. But more are coming. Currently
the lowest level of decisions making described in the constitution is
the municipality. The President wants to lower that to the community or
Parish. The divisions into areas were created by the oligarchy. So what
we are proposing, here in our area, is to create new communal
territories so there will be a new geography of power, bringing
together parishes into communal territories, taking into account
geography, culture, etc.
There
will be many communes composed of communal councils. And the President
talks about this for the future, government by the communes. And the
Mayor's offices would tend to disappear. So we would have a communal
government and parliament and judiciary, indeed all five branches from
the national level would exist locally as well. And we are proposing
this for the entire country. Each territory would have its own communal
plan. In our area the main productive activity is cattle. So the
problems here are distinct from many other areas. Water exists in some
places, not others, and so on. So development plans differ and public
services differ, etc.
So
for example we abolish the old companies, like water, electricity,
etc., and create them anew for particular communal areas, likewise for
universities, etc.
When the other Mayors see this, do they think you are crazy?
(laughing) Yes. Exactly. They don't understand why I am trying to get rid of all my power and transfer it to the community.
It
isn't very common behavior. But moving on to another topic, the 2004
reform of the penal code, I am told it has a provision outlawing
disrespect of government officials.
Chavez tried to remove it, but the Assembly overruled and kept it at least for now.
It seems to me you could use this law to put all the other Mayors in jail for disrespecting you…
(laughing) No, no…
But
my real question is, how would you reply to the criticism that the
communal councils plus the loyalty law might make it possible for the
government to use the councils as a kind of spying system to see who
disrespects the government. You could establish lots of local
organizations to spy on the population and to point out those who were
disrespecting the government so they could be prosecuted. Lots of
people in the world, including many leftists, worry that that is what
the councils are all about.
But
no, that is not true at all. First the councils are to be the new
authority in society. But, second, we have to recognize that this
revolution is under threat and that we are going to institute all
mechanisms we can to defend it. We are convinced we have to defend our
process from the bottom to the top. And the best way to observe actions
that go against socialist ethics and the constitution and the laws
sometimes includes people reporting what they see.
All
of the mechanisms for defending the revolution have to be decided in
the general assemblies. For example, the communal councils have as a
task, which they have agreed to, making an inventory of the people who
could possibly be in the military reserve of the community, people who
could be in the militia, etc. For example, I am obliged to participate
in military training and practice. The task of defending the country is
in the hands of not only the military but also the organized
population. So the President has said we need to pass new laws so this
would be systemized in some way. If there weren't dangers from enemies
we would not have to worry about these matters.
If
someone in the community has information about narco-trafficing, say,
or some other criminal activity that goes against the revolution, of
course the community itself has to decide how to deal with it. We are
not going to do anything other than defend the revolution.
For
example, not too long ago communal councils in a region not far away
discovered a religious cult group engaged in counter revolutionary
activity, and they made the information available to the national
government, and the group was expelled from the country. So, yes, it is
the peoples' task to watch out, but control also rests with the people.
What
is the role of political parties, and why was a new party recently
created? When you have the 50,000 communal councils, what is the role
of parties?
I
should say I come from a party that supports the President, but it is
not his party. Previously there was no possibility for people working
out a shared national vision – only dispersed organizations could have
shared views separately from each other. So the President believed it
was necessary to have a united party so that people could have a space
to develop shared plans. So the new party brings together everyone who
shares the same broad vision for Venezuela
so we can discuss the big topics to create a politics that relates to
the communal councils. It is a way to connect different issues.
So the President says you need to form a party which combines everyone who supports the revolution.
Yes,
an instrument that facilitates the transition from capitalism toward a
new kind of socialism, which is distinct from the task of the councils.
But
if you say that the party is everyone who supports the revolution,
doesn't it imply that anyone who isn't in the party doesn't support the
revolution?
No, you could be in various other social movements and not belong to any party and still support the revolution.
Yes, but can you have 2,3,4, or 5 parties all of which support the revolution but nonetheless have different views?
The
conception that the revolutionary party has is that, instead, there
would be factions inside the party that would express the different
views.
That
is also the view that Lenin had, that inside the party there should be
factions for different viewpoints. A few years later, however, he
decided, whooops, I made a mistake. Not only should we have one party,
but we should have no factions. That kind of thing has happened over
and over and as a result some people on the left who don't like the
idea of a one party state think that factions inside a party are good
but you also need multiple parties because if you say everyone has to
be in one room and Chavez, say, is also in that room, then the outcome
will be what Chavez wants. On the other hand, if there are a bunch of
rooms, meaning a bunch of parties, then people can get together in
their parties and develop their programs and then contend in front of
the whole population for which program is better.
The
President is saying there should be one party of the revolution that
discusses policies and then the government executes the policies that
result. But I am convinced that we are not talking about one single
party or thought. From a political point of view, operationally, it
makes sense to have a party that expresses various contending views and
discusses them. We think that the party, the PSUV, should be all the
expressions of Chavismo and the revolution, and that it should
recognize and respect other parties and social movements, but that this
party has the role of being an instrument to take the revolution to the
different levels that the peasants and other citizens want.
The
party exists to discuss different factions views and particular
interests on the road to a strategic unity while still respecting
differences.
Critics
say that there is a personality cult around President Chavez. They base
their argument on the lack of leaders who enjoy anything like as much
popularity as him and on the existence of slogans such as "Chavez is
the people," "With Chavez anything without Chavez nothing," "Who is
against Chavez is against the people." It sounds a little like North Korea. So what do you say about this accusation?
For
us President Chavez has broken many paradigms, has broken with many
historical trends. So strong has been the empathy that has been
produced by his speeches and acts, and his giving up of all material
wealth, his letting go his family and his belongings, and putting his
life at risk repeatedly, this example has had tremendous impact,
something none of us have ever experienced from a leader before.
It was like an explosion in the heart for us all, and we all connected in a very direct way with Chavez due to it.
Maybe
there is a larger issue, but at this point in time Chavez is absolutely
necessary, cannot be done without, for our revolutionary process.
We
lacked leaders and the people were desperate and had no hope. Chavez
was a product of various rebellions. He didn't come from nowhere. He is
not a Messiah. He is the result of an accumulation of experiences of a
popular process of the people.
We
identified Chavez at a particular moment to take up the anguish and the
struggles of the people. And since he resembles the people to such an
extent, thinks and acts like the people, and says exactly what he
thinks – he is what is needed at this moment. So right now, I think
that Chavez is absolutely indispensable.
I
am one of those who is fighting against the current that argues for
Chavismo without Chavez. To the extent that Fidel Castro sees that his
time has come to an end, it is now Hugo Chavez's time. So the slogans
you are quoting that sound very personal, well, it is because Chavez
really does embody the personal anguish, the old lack of hope, the new
rising hope, and the desires of the people. And that is why we say with
him, everything, without him, nothing.
At this moment Chavez is the man. He is at the heart of the process unfolding here in Latin America.
Even
accepting everything you are saying as the state of mind and situation
now, if we look years into the future wouldn't it be better if there
were other people who could play his role too. And if would be better,
doesn't it imply things should be done to promote that?
I agree, but not right now.
2012, 2018?
Much further.
Why not now?
There
is a lot of fragility and there are threats. We believe Chavez has the
morality and experience to keep us together. All of the things we have
discussed and much more have been more or less inspired by President
Chavez. So the things I have been explaining, the councils, etc., have
come from him. His contacts with and trust with the military are also
central. I think new leaders will arise, but not out of the people
around Chavez now. Maybe in ten years there will be new leadership
corresponding to what people need and want. And surely some of those
folks are developing now, in our many social programs.
I know you must go soon. I want to thank you for your time, and wish you great luck moving the revolution forward.