Chavez on referendum: 49 percent say yes to socialism

By Berta Joubert-Ceci

Dec 5, 2007--The Venezuelan National Electoral Commission (CNE) early on Dec. 3 announced the results of the previous day’s referendum on proposed major changes to 69 articles of the Venezuelan Constitution. The “No” vote opposing the reforms had won by a margin of less than 2 percent over the “Yes” option, which would have deepened progressive changes and ratified the reconstruction of society on a socialist basis.

Announcing the results on national radio and television, President Hugo Chávez said that his proposed reform “could not happen for now, but I continue to propose it, the most advanced in the planet and the one that aims to reach the maximum social inclusion, a fundamental principle of our system.”

Chávez emphasized that “as president of the nation, I have listened to the voice of the people and will always keep listening to it. I will take it into my heart for our analysis and to continue constructing the Bolivarian Venezuela for our children.” In a later statement, he said, “We will have to mature and continue building our socialism.”

When the news was known, forces opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution began celebrating in the wealthy neighborhoods over what they called the “end of Chávez” and the revolution—in other words, their hopes to bring back the old system of privilege and wealth for the few and poverty and exclusion for the majority.

Since Chávez took office in 1998, the pro-revolutionary forces had prevailed in every local and national election, including the 2004 attempt by the right wing to remove the president from office in a Recall Referendum and the presidential reelection a year ago, in December 2006. They had won a total of 10 electoral processes.

What happened this time? Is the revolution weakening? Is the right-wing opposition getting stronger? Are the people disillusioned with the revolution or opposed to the idea of building socialism in Venezuela? Besides the electoral process, what methods can be used to advance the revolution?

Before any of those questions can be answered, we should look closely at the results. Of the estimated 27 million Venezuelans, 16 million are registered to vote. The election commission reported that 8,883,746 valid votes were counted, reflecting a high level of abstention: 44 percent. In the presidential elections a year ago, Chávez won with 63 percent of the vote and the abstention rate was only 25 percent.

The Constitutional Referendum was complicated, with 69 articles divided into two separate blocks, voted on separately. Taking both blocks, the results were 50-51 percent of the vote for the “No” option and 48-49 percent for the “Yes.”

Several of the articles in question dealt with concrete issues like decreasing the work hours and guaranteeing social security for workers in the informal economy. Others dealt with more abstract matters that required careful study and explanation. These included a new division of the national territory, how to deal with a national emergency, and steps toward a transition to socialism.

Efforts were made to inform the population about the proposed reforms. The National Assembly distributed 10 million copies of the proposal between August and October. A special phone line was established for consultation and more than 9,000 events were held throughout the country.

However, it is clear that this was not enough. Bolivarian Venezuelans are now in the process of seriously analyzing this outcome.

President Chávez said: “We were short 3 million people who did not vote [this time]. Why? We have to evaluate this. I am completely sure that the immense majority of those people are still with us. They did not vote for the Yes; they abstained—doubts, fears, we did not have enough time, capacity to explain. ... There are many political elements that we must consider in this battle.”

He noted, however, that “The fact that 49 percent have voted for the socialist project, in spite of everything, is a great political step.”

U.S. behind the opposition

Despite the advances made on behalf of the poor majority, the capitalist mode of production still exists in Venezuela. The U.S.-allied oligarchy is in a constant fight against the progressive measures and the prospect of building socialism.

The traditional opposition, the old parties of the Fourth Republic that carried out the U.S.-instigated coup against Chávez in 2002, had been fractionalized and weakened. But a new layer has surfaced that has brought hope to the oligarchy. These are mostly the offspring of the white and wealthy Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Some come from public colleges but most are from private and Catholic colleges. They have been staging sometimes violent demonstrations opposing the constitutional reform and complaining that President Chávez wants to be a dictator-for-life because one of the articles called for ending term limits on the presidency.

These sons and daughters of the rich hide under the banner of “freedom and democracy,” showing arrogant and racist contempt against not only the president but the poor and the rest of Venezuela’s youth, who are strongly with the revolution.

U.S. imperialism is trying new tactics to stop the revolution. In the Dec. 2 Washington Post, Juan Forero wrote that “some student groups have received funding for workshops from the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to documents made available to The Washington Post on Saturday. ... The U.S. documents, obtained through a freedom of information request filed by a researcher for the National Security Archive at George Washington University, show that $216,000 was provided from 2003 through this year to unnamed student groups at several universities for ‘conflict resolution,’ ‘democracy promotion’ and other programs.”

In this deeply religious country, the Catholic Church has also played a destabilizing role. Vice President Jorge Rodríguez sent a video to Papal Nuncio Giacinto Berloco, recorded earlier in one of the Caracas churches, showing calls to ignore the outcome of the elections if the Yes option won.

Another tactic used by the opposition was a severe food shortage, created mostly by the hoarding of basic food items by the oligarchy’s agribusiness and food distribution sector. For weeks many people had to stand in long lines in the Mercales, the government-subsidized markets. This, the oligarchs said, is what can happen under socialism. The campaign also tried to scare people into thinking that a socialist government could take away their children and homes.

In late November, Venezuelan counterintelligence obtained an internal CIA memorandum on “Operation Tenaza [Pliers]” from the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. The memo was authored by a CIA officer stationed in the embassy, Michael Middleton Steere, and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington.

It revealed different aspects of the CIA campaign against the revolution, including the work of the USAID, the creation of fraudulent polls and the distortion of information about the referendum in conjunction with private national and international media. Multiple destabilizing actions described range from violent street protests and the creation of a climate of ungovernability to military intervention. President Chávez read the text on television, calling on the people to be alert and ready for action.

The elation of the right wing may not last. The pro-revolutionary forces, instead of feeling sad or defeated, are expressing a new enthusiasm for advancing the revolution and building socialism.

Letters to the Web site Aporrea and statements of organized parties and formations all point to the need to filter out what they call opportunist elements around Chávez that are preventing the revolution from moving forward and to increase the dialog with the population explaining the concepts of socialism. One such opportunist is former Defense Minister Raúl Isaías Baduel, who joined the opposition against the reforms, stating that they represented a “constitutional coup.”

The revolutionaries also agree on the need for serious reflection and analysis to try to correct any mistakes committed.