Borincano
19th May 2002, 06:36
Hugo Chávez and Venezuela
by Luis Orlando Gallardo Rivera
www.reddemcee.com
(I didn’t write the article, it’s an online buddies.’)
In Venezuela’s elections of December 1998 former Colonel Hugo Chávez shocked the world and took the presidency with almost 60% of the vote (the largest majority in four decades). The traditional two-party system fell apart as this Marxist stormed the capital democratically six years after he attempted to do so physically through a coup. Chavez had reform on his mind: tired of an economic system that failed to provide the poor (80% of the population) with basic necessities, Chávez took the stage with an anti-American and anti-capitalist stance. Giving hope to Latin American leftists, Chávez has become one of the most criticized presidents as he falls victim to pressure from the U.S. and the rest of the West to “tone himself down” and step down.
One of Chávez’s first actions was to rewrite the constitution. A referendum was held in April 1999 on the desirability of elections to create a Constituent Assembly, which resulted in an 88% vote for the “Yes” option (82% accepted that the Assembly define Chávez’s limits of power). Chávez supporters, separating themselves from the traditional party system made up 96% of the Assembly seats. A December 1999 referendum ratified the constitution drafted by Chávez and his Assembly with a 71% vote. In an attempt to prove his reaffirm his authority, Chávez held a new presidential election and once again won with 60% of the vote. “If Venezuelans ever felt deprived of democratic practice, they were now in receipt of it in abundance,” states journalist Richard Gott.
Sometimes referred to as the next Hitler or Mussolini, Chávez has been painted by both the international and domestic (upper-class owned) media as an enemy of Democracy. Chávez opponents seem to forget that his climb to power was carried out, maintained, and reapproved democratically. Never has the voting peoples of Venezuela been so united behind one figure. Since Chávez attained power democratically through both the old and new democratic written and approved constitutions, any move of his to implement any socialist reforms will in fact result in a form of democratic economics. Can one think of any system that could be more democratic?
Throughout the past few months, Chávez has begun to appoint more and more military officials to various posts throughout his government. The “militarization of Venezuela” is worrying a few democrats (especially since Latin America has a bloody history of military governments). These appointments, according to Chávez are meant to signalize the “union” of the armed forces and civil society. Voters knew what they were getting; Chávez himself was a military man (from his own mouth: “I understand the soul of the army and I am part of that soul”). *In the U.S., military men are also populous through the government (Cheney and Powell, for example). It also seems that critics do not notice the role of the military in Latin America, which is summed up well by Carlos Alberto Montaner:
In the advanced democracies, the role of the military is to protect the nation from foreign threats. In Latin America, the military has often assigned itself the task of saving the nation from the failures of the politicians, either imposing military visions of social justice by force or simply taking over the government and maintaining public order. In both cases, it has behaved like an occupying force in its own country.
Military sovereignty results in a bigger chance of a coup. Only a few weeks ago, various military officials in Venezuela were renouncing Chávez and demanding that he step down. The appointing of military officials to government posts is the smartest thing that Chávez can do right about now. Former Marxist and Chilean President Salvador Allende did the same almost thirty years ago but not as fast as he could have (he was soon over-thrown by a U.S.-backed military coup). As the opposition organizes (scattered and shocked after Chávez’s lighting-fast rise to power), and military officers publicly dissent against the government, increasing the friendship between the government and the military is required if democracy is to be maintained. Is it not ironic that the same people who call Chávez a threat to democracy are urging for a military coup?
From the beginning of his rise to the presidency Chávez has been attempting to integrate the military into his government. “The idea is to return the military to their basic social function, so that both as citizens and as an institution, they can be incorporated into the democratic development projects of the country” states Chávez. *That is exactly what he did: under Chávez, members of the military were granted the right to vote. Since “we’re not thinking of going to war with anyone,” Chávez has implemented “Plan Bolívar 2000”, where troops have been sent to disaster zones to carry out humanitarian tasks. The military now participates in activities such as highway construction, renovation of schools and hospitals, and medical care. “The Venezuelan armed forces now have a social function,” states Chávez. *Without the support and the integration of the military into civil society, even a democratically elected Latin American government will not survive.
The election of Chávez shows that socialism is a “sleeping giant” in Latin America. Throughout the last forty years Venezuela has been ran by two neoliberal parties, both of which have protected the interests of the upper class and combined juggled about 90% of the vote. Within a span of a few months, Chávez slapped together a loose coalition of radicals, democratic socialists, communists, and other progressive third parties and won the 1998 elections by a landslide.
Critical of globalism and neoliberalism, Chávez is Venezuela’s first real alternative to the system that has failed for the country. With an abundance of land space, natural resources, and labor, Venezuela is now taking advantage of its resources by decreeing its authority over its natural resources and constitutionally forbidding the privatization of the state-run petroleum company. The new government is also attempting to open up its markets to other sources in order to cut its dependency on the U.S. *Reviving OPEC and refusing to increase petroleum output, Venezuela has had some modest economic advancement (achieving modest economic growth and an 29% increase in nontraditional exports). Since 1998, the government deficit in comparison to the GDP dropped 60%. The current account has also changed from a deficit of almost $3 billion to a $14 billion surplus, allowing Venezuela to accumulate more than $12 billion in foreign exchange reserves. At the same time, Chávez has established a property limit on the upper-class (the setting of the stage for land reform), has kick-started various programs to open credit lines to rural agricultures, and has only began to march into his economic plan.
Still, the vast majority of Venezuelans live in poverty. According to one study, 97% of the population has “faced a drastic decline in living standards since the mid-1980s.” *In a country where the minimum wage is only 13% of the minimum basic necessities cost, Chávez is providing an alternative for the current system that has not worked with any of other elected presidents throughout Venezuela’s 40 years of democracy. As stated by Chávez in an interview,
“What has been called the democratic system in Venezuela has not differed much in recent years from what came before… Everything has basically remained the same; it’s been the same system of domination with a different face, whether it’s that of General Gómez or of Doctor Rafael Caldera…”
Another of the alleged threats to democracy is Chávez’s temper against the opposition press. Various international journalist organizations have recently been scorning the Chávez government for his unfriendliness with various domestic and foreign journalists. A number of journalists have claimed that they have been wire tapped and sometimes even followed or harassed by Chávez supporters, but one must look at what exactly these journalists are saying. Some of these news sources are tabloids or publish fictitious stories or slander. If the New York Times began to run falsified articles in an attempt to cause public panic and dismantle the Bush administration than the same, or even worse would be occurring with the journalists.
Currently in Venezuela, opponents of Chávez are marching through the streets chanting for a military coup or a revolution against Chávez. Such acts would never be tolerated in the U.S., so it is foolish to say that Venezuela is a country lacking freedom of speech rights. In terms of how much the opposition can get away with, Venezuela is freer than the U.S.
Ever since the first days of Chávez’s election, his government has commonly been labeled as a supporter of the Marxist guerrillas of neighboring Colombia. Even though his administration might not admit it so bluntly, proof that some forms of contact or even cooperation between Marxist Colombian guerrillas and Chávez’s government is available. Venezuelan arms have been confiscated from guerrilla troops and Colombian army generals have reported that Marxists have utilized a base from within Venezuela as a launching pad for hit-and-run attacks on the Colombian military. Members of Colombia’s leftist guerrilla groups have also made their appearance in the Caracas hall of the National Assembly. This has caught the attention of the CIA, especially since Venezuela refuses to allow the U.S. right to operate from within Venezuela in its “Plan Colombia”, which attempts to shut down on the Colombian insurgencies.
This should not be surprising – not only does he share similar leftist views as Colombia’s communist guerrillas but they also share the dream of a Gran Colombia (a union of Latin American states). Currently the U.S. is backing up the Colombian military and to an extent the rightist paramilitaries (many of which have received training from the U.S. and at times operate side-by-side with the Colombian army). Passed in June 2000 by the U.S. Senate, Plan Colombia was “purportedly designed to fight the production and trafficking of illegal narcotics”. *This plan targets leftist guerrillas, which is quite ironic since the paramilitaries are involved in drug trafficking more than the communist guerrillas, according to the magazine, The Economist. *Also, reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch credit the rightist paramilitaries with over 75% of the country’s human rights abuses.
The leftist guerrillas themselves do little if any institutionalized drug trafficking. Not concerned with the combating of drugs (Colombian drug use rates are relatively low), guerrilla groups only tax the profits of whatever is grown by farmers on their land. These groups tax whatever crop is grown – it does not matter if the farmer produces yucca, malanga, marijuana, or cocoa.
These groups are generally popular among the peasants and the poor of Colombia’s vast rural areas. Groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) provide some sorts of protection, judiciary service, and organization for these areas. It is difficult for the FARC to flex its political muscles within the national politics due to the hostility of the military and paramilitaries (which virtually annihilated a legal leftist political party, killing thousands, during the mid-1990s) so it resorts to violence. After all of these accounts are taken in account, it is no longer a radical idea that the FARC receive small amounts of help from Venezuela. While the billions of dollars being pumped into Colombia from the U.S. are being done in the name of the drug problems of a nation thousands of miles away and economic interests, the leftist movements of both Venezuela and Colombia (not perfect in itself) at least suggest some sort of reform in Latin America that would benefit the vast majority of the population.
Chávez has received heavy criticism for partaking in diplomatic tours to places such as Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and China. Many use Chávez’s trips as “proof” of his dictatorship nature but only a few months ago U.S. President George W. Bush was dressed up in traditional Chinese dress hugging China’s dictator. Whether it is the military dictator of Pakistan or the crowned prince of Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials have done exactly what Chávez has been doing. He has also received criticism for “disobeying” the U.S.-orchestrated economic sanctions on Cuba and Iraq. Please note the “U.S.” in “U.S.-orchestrated”. One country should never have the ability to force the rest of the world to carry out its economic policy. If the U.S. can trade with communist China then it is only fair that Venezuela be able to trade with Cuba.
Chavez has stated openly that he receives inspiration from Cuba and Fidel Castro in reforming Venezuelan education, health, and athletic systems. This is totally understandable for Cuba’s education system, health care, and athletic performances are some of the best of Latin America. For decades Latin American nations have been looking up to Cuba as an example of effective health care and education and at times have even received technical help.
One of Chávez’s long-term goals is the ‘Bolivarist’ unification of Latin America. A revival of ideology from Latin American liberator Simón Bolívar, Chávez would like to see the recreation of Gran Colombia (read Bolivarism and the Cultural Compatibility of Independence), a sort of “United States of Latin America”. The U.S. scrutinizes Chávez’s Bolivarian intentions due to the fact that various rebel, indigenous, and Creole movements throughout the region also back up such a union.
Even though this idea might be far-fetched it is not unrealistic: Latin America, a continent with large amounts of resources and a large population is divided by hundred year old borders drawn up by foreign colonial powers. The incorporation of these countries under one flag was an original intention after the wars for independence. The riches of the country are unevenly distributed and the small nations of the region commonly fall victim to invasions, foreign intervention, blockades, and imposed economic policies. A union of Latin American nations would create an economic, military, political, and most of all cultural power prone to outside interference. Most people praise a free trade union of all of the Americas (or even the world) but will quickly frown upon a Latin American free trade union. Any such confederation or amalgamation would result in an uplifting of the continent.
Chávez’s “Bolivarian circles” is one of his newer ideas but the concept has existed in Latin America for some time now. Titled the “Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement”(MBR) program, the government wishes to establish popular neighborhood-based organizations or cells to defend Chávez’s revolution. Many critics call this the “Cubanization” of Venezuela, for Cuba too has communal cells that were created to defend the Cuban revolution. There are plenty of differences between Cuba and Venezuela’s communal cells but the most apparent is the fact that Venezuela’s revolution is democratic.
Initially, the MBR programs seem like an attempt to gain a grip on power within the neighborhoods and villages but one must look at what it attempts to achieve. These organizations are meant to maximize the participation of the community and to cut the bureaucracy between the government and the people. Originally enacted by former Chilean President Salvador Allende, these groups partake in various health, education, culture, sport, public service, housing, environmental, and cultural programs (read More Democracy). The MBR attempts to dissect the government’s presence within the community and replace it with a power that is not only for or by the people, but is the people.
MBR leader Guillermo Garcia Ponce has stated that “The Bolivarian circles are the organized people in the neighborhoods, townships, projects, every place in Venezuela, in order to strengthen the revolutionary process, to bring the people into the activity of the government, to make participatory democracy effective, to carry out the Constitution and to defend it.” *These cells shall dismantle the traditional state apparatus and replace the armed forces, courts, and police, thus reflecting the masses of the people and organizing them to act in their own interest.
Already, Venezuela has formed a communal group in Naiguata that has started a job training and sports program for neighborhood children and fund raising for communal medical needs. “Don’t wait until tomorrow,” states Chávez, “Call your neighbors. Call your friends. Organize a circle and find ways to fill potholes on your street, to assist the government, to reclaim your rights.”
The MBR is far from a non-democratic movement. In fact, it is one of the most democratic systems that can be implemented. While traditional Western democracy has worked well in the West, it has failed to provide Latin America with the necessities needed to maintain an acceptable standard of living. This alternate form of democracy still puts power in the hands of the people but in a way that works better for a Latin American culture that is based more on family and friends than individualism.
by Luis Orlando Gallardo Rivera
www.reddemcee.com
(I didn’t write the article, it’s an online buddies.’)
In Venezuela’s elections of December 1998 former Colonel Hugo Chávez shocked the world and took the presidency with almost 60% of the vote (the largest majority in four decades). The traditional two-party system fell apart as this Marxist stormed the capital democratically six years after he attempted to do so physically through a coup. Chavez had reform on his mind: tired of an economic system that failed to provide the poor (80% of the population) with basic necessities, Chávez took the stage with an anti-American and anti-capitalist stance. Giving hope to Latin American leftists, Chávez has become one of the most criticized presidents as he falls victim to pressure from the U.S. and the rest of the West to “tone himself down” and step down.
One of Chávez’s first actions was to rewrite the constitution. A referendum was held in April 1999 on the desirability of elections to create a Constituent Assembly, which resulted in an 88% vote for the “Yes” option (82% accepted that the Assembly define Chávez’s limits of power). Chávez supporters, separating themselves from the traditional party system made up 96% of the Assembly seats. A December 1999 referendum ratified the constitution drafted by Chávez and his Assembly with a 71% vote. In an attempt to prove his reaffirm his authority, Chávez held a new presidential election and once again won with 60% of the vote. “If Venezuelans ever felt deprived of democratic practice, they were now in receipt of it in abundance,” states journalist Richard Gott.
Sometimes referred to as the next Hitler or Mussolini, Chávez has been painted by both the international and domestic (upper-class owned) media as an enemy of Democracy. Chávez opponents seem to forget that his climb to power was carried out, maintained, and reapproved democratically. Never has the voting peoples of Venezuela been so united behind one figure. Since Chávez attained power democratically through both the old and new democratic written and approved constitutions, any move of his to implement any socialist reforms will in fact result in a form of democratic economics. Can one think of any system that could be more democratic?
Throughout the past few months, Chávez has begun to appoint more and more military officials to various posts throughout his government. The “militarization of Venezuela” is worrying a few democrats (especially since Latin America has a bloody history of military governments). These appointments, according to Chávez are meant to signalize the “union” of the armed forces and civil society. Voters knew what they were getting; Chávez himself was a military man (from his own mouth: “I understand the soul of the army and I am part of that soul”). *In the U.S., military men are also populous through the government (Cheney and Powell, for example). It also seems that critics do not notice the role of the military in Latin America, which is summed up well by Carlos Alberto Montaner:
In the advanced democracies, the role of the military is to protect the nation from foreign threats. In Latin America, the military has often assigned itself the task of saving the nation from the failures of the politicians, either imposing military visions of social justice by force or simply taking over the government and maintaining public order. In both cases, it has behaved like an occupying force in its own country.
Military sovereignty results in a bigger chance of a coup. Only a few weeks ago, various military officials in Venezuela were renouncing Chávez and demanding that he step down. The appointing of military officials to government posts is the smartest thing that Chávez can do right about now. Former Marxist and Chilean President Salvador Allende did the same almost thirty years ago but not as fast as he could have (he was soon over-thrown by a U.S.-backed military coup). As the opposition organizes (scattered and shocked after Chávez’s lighting-fast rise to power), and military officers publicly dissent against the government, increasing the friendship between the government and the military is required if democracy is to be maintained. Is it not ironic that the same people who call Chávez a threat to democracy are urging for a military coup?
From the beginning of his rise to the presidency Chávez has been attempting to integrate the military into his government. “The idea is to return the military to their basic social function, so that both as citizens and as an institution, they can be incorporated into the democratic development projects of the country” states Chávez. *That is exactly what he did: under Chávez, members of the military were granted the right to vote. Since “we’re not thinking of going to war with anyone,” Chávez has implemented “Plan Bolívar 2000”, where troops have been sent to disaster zones to carry out humanitarian tasks. The military now participates in activities such as highway construction, renovation of schools and hospitals, and medical care. “The Venezuelan armed forces now have a social function,” states Chávez. *Without the support and the integration of the military into civil society, even a democratically elected Latin American government will not survive.
The election of Chávez shows that socialism is a “sleeping giant” in Latin America. Throughout the last forty years Venezuela has been ran by two neoliberal parties, both of which have protected the interests of the upper class and combined juggled about 90% of the vote. Within a span of a few months, Chávez slapped together a loose coalition of radicals, democratic socialists, communists, and other progressive third parties and won the 1998 elections by a landslide.
Critical of globalism and neoliberalism, Chávez is Venezuela’s first real alternative to the system that has failed for the country. With an abundance of land space, natural resources, and labor, Venezuela is now taking advantage of its resources by decreeing its authority over its natural resources and constitutionally forbidding the privatization of the state-run petroleum company. The new government is also attempting to open up its markets to other sources in order to cut its dependency on the U.S. *Reviving OPEC and refusing to increase petroleum output, Venezuela has had some modest economic advancement (achieving modest economic growth and an 29% increase in nontraditional exports). Since 1998, the government deficit in comparison to the GDP dropped 60%. The current account has also changed from a deficit of almost $3 billion to a $14 billion surplus, allowing Venezuela to accumulate more than $12 billion in foreign exchange reserves. At the same time, Chávez has established a property limit on the upper-class (the setting of the stage for land reform), has kick-started various programs to open credit lines to rural agricultures, and has only began to march into his economic plan.
Still, the vast majority of Venezuelans live in poverty. According to one study, 97% of the population has “faced a drastic decline in living standards since the mid-1980s.” *In a country where the minimum wage is only 13% of the minimum basic necessities cost, Chávez is providing an alternative for the current system that has not worked with any of other elected presidents throughout Venezuela’s 40 years of democracy. As stated by Chávez in an interview,
“What has been called the democratic system in Venezuela has not differed much in recent years from what came before… Everything has basically remained the same; it’s been the same system of domination with a different face, whether it’s that of General Gómez or of Doctor Rafael Caldera…”
Another of the alleged threats to democracy is Chávez’s temper against the opposition press. Various international journalist organizations have recently been scorning the Chávez government for his unfriendliness with various domestic and foreign journalists. A number of journalists have claimed that they have been wire tapped and sometimes even followed or harassed by Chávez supporters, but one must look at what exactly these journalists are saying. Some of these news sources are tabloids or publish fictitious stories or slander. If the New York Times began to run falsified articles in an attempt to cause public panic and dismantle the Bush administration than the same, or even worse would be occurring with the journalists.
Currently in Venezuela, opponents of Chávez are marching through the streets chanting for a military coup or a revolution against Chávez. Such acts would never be tolerated in the U.S., so it is foolish to say that Venezuela is a country lacking freedom of speech rights. In terms of how much the opposition can get away with, Venezuela is freer than the U.S.
Ever since the first days of Chávez’s election, his government has commonly been labeled as a supporter of the Marxist guerrillas of neighboring Colombia. Even though his administration might not admit it so bluntly, proof that some forms of contact or even cooperation between Marxist Colombian guerrillas and Chávez’s government is available. Venezuelan arms have been confiscated from guerrilla troops and Colombian army generals have reported that Marxists have utilized a base from within Venezuela as a launching pad for hit-and-run attacks on the Colombian military. Members of Colombia’s leftist guerrilla groups have also made their appearance in the Caracas hall of the National Assembly. This has caught the attention of the CIA, especially since Venezuela refuses to allow the U.S. right to operate from within Venezuela in its “Plan Colombia”, which attempts to shut down on the Colombian insurgencies.
This should not be surprising – not only does he share similar leftist views as Colombia’s communist guerrillas but they also share the dream of a Gran Colombia (a union of Latin American states). Currently the U.S. is backing up the Colombian military and to an extent the rightist paramilitaries (many of which have received training from the U.S. and at times operate side-by-side with the Colombian army). Passed in June 2000 by the U.S. Senate, Plan Colombia was “purportedly designed to fight the production and trafficking of illegal narcotics”. *This plan targets leftist guerrillas, which is quite ironic since the paramilitaries are involved in drug trafficking more than the communist guerrillas, according to the magazine, The Economist. *Also, reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch credit the rightist paramilitaries with over 75% of the country’s human rights abuses.
The leftist guerrillas themselves do little if any institutionalized drug trafficking. Not concerned with the combating of drugs (Colombian drug use rates are relatively low), guerrilla groups only tax the profits of whatever is grown by farmers on their land. These groups tax whatever crop is grown – it does not matter if the farmer produces yucca, malanga, marijuana, or cocoa.
These groups are generally popular among the peasants and the poor of Colombia’s vast rural areas. Groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) provide some sorts of protection, judiciary service, and organization for these areas. It is difficult for the FARC to flex its political muscles within the national politics due to the hostility of the military and paramilitaries (which virtually annihilated a legal leftist political party, killing thousands, during the mid-1990s) so it resorts to violence. After all of these accounts are taken in account, it is no longer a radical idea that the FARC receive small amounts of help from Venezuela. While the billions of dollars being pumped into Colombia from the U.S. are being done in the name of the drug problems of a nation thousands of miles away and economic interests, the leftist movements of both Venezuela and Colombia (not perfect in itself) at least suggest some sort of reform in Latin America that would benefit the vast majority of the population.
Chávez has received heavy criticism for partaking in diplomatic tours to places such as Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and China. Many use Chávez’s trips as “proof” of his dictatorship nature but only a few months ago U.S. President George W. Bush was dressed up in traditional Chinese dress hugging China’s dictator. Whether it is the military dictator of Pakistan or the crowned prince of Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials have done exactly what Chávez has been doing. He has also received criticism for “disobeying” the U.S.-orchestrated economic sanctions on Cuba and Iraq. Please note the “U.S.” in “U.S.-orchestrated”. One country should never have the ability to force the rest of the world to carry out its economic policy. If the U.S. can trade with communist China then it is only fair that Venezuela be able to trade with Cuba.
Chavez has stated openly that he receives inspiration from Cuba and Fidel Castro in reforming Venezuelan education, health, and athletic systems. This is totally understandable for Cuba’s education system, health care, and athletic performances are some of the best of Latin America. For decades Latin American nations have been looking up to Cuba as an example of effective health care and education and at times have even received technical help.
One of Chávez’s long-term goals is the ‘Bolivarist’ unification of Latin America. A revival of ideology from Latin American liberator Simón Bolívar, Chávez would like to see the recreation of Gran Colombia (read Bolivarism and the Cultural Compatibility of Independence), a sort of “United States of Latin America”. The U.S. scrutinizes Chávez’s Bolivarian intentions due to the fact that various rebel, indigenous, and Creole movements throughout the region also back up such a union.
Even though this idea might be far-fetched it is not unrealistic: Latin America, a continent with large amounts of resources and a large population is divided by hundred year old borders drawn up by foreign colonial powers. The incorporation of these countries under one flag was an original intention after the wars for independence. The riches of the country are unevenly distributed and the small nations of the region commonly fall victim to invasions, foreign intervention, blockades, and imposed economic policies. A union of Latin American nations would create an economic, military, political, and most of all cultural power prone to outside interference. Most people praise a free trade union of all of the Americas (or even the world) but will quickly frown upon a Latin American free trade union. Any such confederation or amalgamation would result in an uplifting of the continent.
Chávez’s “Bolivarian circles” is one of his newer ideas but the concept has existed in Latin America for some time now. Titled the “Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement”(MBR) program, the government wishes to establish popular neighborhood-based organizations or cells to defend Chávez’s revolution. Many critics call this the “Cubanization” of Venezuela, for Cuba too has communal cells that were created to defend the Cuban revolution. There are plenty of differences between Cuba and Venezuela’s communal cells but the most apparent is the fact that Venezuela’s revolution is democratic.
Initially, the MBR programs seem like an attempt to gain a grip on power within the neighborhoods and villages but one must look at what it attempts to achieve. These organizations are meant to maximize the participation of the community and to cut the bureaucracy between the government and the people. Originally enacted by former Chilean President Salvador Allende, these groups partake in various health, education, culture, sport, public service, housing, environmental, and cultural programs (read More Democracy). The MBR attempts to dissect the government’s presence within the community and replace it with a power that is not only for or by the people, but is the people.
MBR leader Guillermo Garcia Ponce has stated that “The Bolivarian circles are the organized people in the neighborhoods, townships, projects, every place in Venezuela, in order to strengthen the revolutionary process, to bring the people into the activity of the government, to make participatory democracy effective, to carry out the Constitution and to defend it.” *These cells shall dismantle the traditional state apparatus and replace the armed forces, courts, and police, thus reflecting the masses of the people and organizing them to act in their own interest.
Already, Venezuela has formed a communal group in Naiguata that has started a job training and sports program for neighborhood children and fund raising for communal medical needs. “Don’t wait until tomorrow,” states Chávez, “Call your neighbors. Call your friends. Organize a circle and find ways to fill potholes on your street, to assist the government, to reclaim your rights.”
The MBR is far from a non-democratic movement. In fact, it is one of the most democratic systems that can be implemented. While traditional Western democracy has worked well in the West, it has failed to provide Latin America with the necessities needed to maintain an acceptable standard of living. This alternate form of democracy still puts power in the hands of the people but in a way that works better for a Latin American culture that is based more on family and friends than individualism.