In 1999, by popular referendum, a constituent
assembly was called. The undertaking of re-writing the constitution had
been mulled over and discussed for so many years that it took only six months
to write the document and ratify it, by yet another referendum. The Constitution
marked the beginning of a new era: the Fifth Republic. Not only had the
name of the country been changed, but also the rulebook had been re-written,
with the participation of and to the advantage of el pueblo (the
people).
The preamble of the 1999 Constitution of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela states that one of the Constitution’s goals
is to establish a participatory democracy achieved through elected representatives,
popular votes by referendum, and popular mobilization. It points to the document
itself as being a product of this new participation, and it in fact was.
Social organizations were invited to participate
through a multitude of venues such as forums, workshops, and committees.
They were also encouraged to draft their own proposals for consideration
by the Assembly. Unlike in the years of Constitutional reform when social
actors had little success getting their concerns met,[1] more than 50 percent of the 624 proposals brought
to the table by civil society were included in the 1999 Constitution (Garcia-
Guadilla, 2003: 185). The document’s coverage of a broad range of issues
reflects this diverse public participation.
There are no less than 111 articles spelling
out civic rights that address topics such as culture and education, Indigenous
rights, adequate housing, land distribution, worker safety, protection
of family and children, and priority of the environment. Political participation
is addressed in articles 71 through 74, which describe the popular referendum
mechanism that affords the public a direct voice in legislation and the
power to recall any publicly elected figure. Article 341 explains the public's
right to initiate constitutional amendments and subjects all proposed amendments,
regardless of their origin, to referendum vote. The military was granted
the right to vote, allowing a large sector of young (mostly) males from
predominately poor backgrounds to participate in the political character
of the country they defend.
Importantly, the document not only lays out the
rights of the citizenry, but also the duties of the state and the public
in attaining and maintaining the ideals of the nation. There are six articles
elaborating the duties of all citizens. These articles formally establish
the intent of the Fifth Republic administration to enlist the general public
in the pursuit of national goals. Article 132 states that everyone has
the duty to fulfill his or her social responsibilities through participation
in the political, civic, and community life of the country with the goal
of promoting and protecting human rights as the foundation of democratic
coexistence and social peace. Article 133 repeals forcible recruitment into
the armed forces, but recognizes everyone’s duty to perform civilian or military
service as may be necessary for the defense, preservation, and development
of the country. Article 135 says that the state’s obligation to the general
welfare of society does not preclude the obligation of private individuals
to participate according to their abilities. These duties describe participation
much beyond the electoral process. They compel the public to see themselves
as not so much the governed masses, but as active builders of their own society.
It is evident by the hyper- participation in
social movements and other forms of political expression that the public
does feel that they have a say in the direction of the country in a way that
they never had before. Although many of the organizations whose fundamental
goal was to open up the decision making process dissolved once this goal
was reached, other groups found themselves freed up to pursue their specific
concerns such as the environment, housing, or education. Beyond these previous
players, there are now literally hundreds of thousands of new neighborhood
groups, community organizations, cooperatives, and social networks.
According to PROVEA, a Venezuelan, non-profit
human rights organization, the most notable social movement in the country
since the beginning of the Fifth Republic is that of cooperatives. Cooperatives
are forming in every sector of society and within every social movement.
There are artisan, security, cultivation, sanitation, community media, and
women’s cooperatives to name few. According to the National Superintendency
of Cooperatives (SUNACOOP) there were 1900 cooperatives in 2001. By July
2003 this number has risen to 10,000 representing 659,000 individuals. SUNACOOP
lists 34 percent of all coops in the category of goods and services, 31
percent in food production, and 23 percent in transportation (Gov. pub.
2003)
In June 2003 the president announced that 15
billion Bolivars of the federal budget would go to finance cooperatives.
In addition, the 2001 Special Law of Cooperative Associations that lays down
the ground rules for registering and managing a cooperative, states that
“In equal conditions, cooperatives will be given preference by financing
and credit institutes” as well as preference for government contracts.
In a country where the business sector has been traditionally dependent on
government and oil industry contracts, this is a significant incentive. Also
in favor of cooperatives is Article 24 of the Law of the Intergovernmental
Decentralization Fund (FIDES), which assigns at least 20 percent of the annual
resources allotted to States and Municipalities to the financing of projects
presented by organized communities, neighborhood associations and NGO’s.[2]
A cooperative is a legally registered association
united with the aim of fulfilling common needs and solving common problems.
Cooperatives are flexible autonomous bodies whose members each have an
equal voice and whose properties belong to each member equally. Cooperatives
are based on values such as mutual assistance, self-reliance and responsibility,
democracy, equality, and solidarity. Members are held to the ethical standards
of honesty, transparency, social responsibility and duty.
In an effort to overcome party politics and to
bring governance closer to the people, the State has begun to impel a social
development that raises public awareness, harnesses human resources and
stimulates a communitarian lifestyle. Through cooperatives the State aims
to induce communities to assume responsibilities of co-governance in the
supervision, control, administration and execution of public works and services,
education and culture. This model of social organization decentralizes power
beyond Mayorships and town councils to the citizen, giving the public legal
instruments for a modern exercise of sovereignty (Red de Redes Politico Social,
2001). Cooperatives have taken hold in nearly all threads of social movements.
Individual cells within each organizational entity have begun to group themselves
in neighborhood cooperatives, which in turn are joining regional cooperatives
that are nested within national networks of cooperatives.
For example, the Women’s Development Bank (BANMUJER),
which was established in 2001 to award women low interest, small business
loans and to provide counseling to women through all stages of business
creation and management, has moved into the cooperative mode as well. Economic
Association Units (UEA) are cooperatives of five to nine women involved
in productive activities within a community. Groups of UEA’s within the
same geographical area are further united into networks. The idea is the
same as with other collectives: more complex cooperative structures can
address more complex issues. In this spirit, BANMUJER also provides free
counseling to women on issues such as sexual and reproductive rights and
political participation and empowerment.
Another example of the spread of cooperatives
can be found within the campesino and barrio movements as well. Land redistribution
is being managed through “land committees.” These are elected popular councils
each representing up to 200 families. Around 150,000 people are involved
in these committees directly participating in the formation of the laws
pertaining to land distribution (Kerrilla, 2003). Working within regional
and national cooperative networks they obtain the technical support necessary
to organize activities such as demarcation of land plots and building of
houses, roads, parks, and utility infrastructures. Land Committees encourage
the formation of cooperative neighborhood base units to participate in
carrying out the work listed above as well as to provide community services
such cooperative childcare, neighborhood vigilance, and cultural activities.
Many regional and national networks of cooperatives
include base units from various types of community organizations. These
diverse collections of mobilized, purposeful entities are taking an integral
approach at developing community participation and self-governance. Community
based media is a crucial means of linking participants, allowing for the
sharing of concerns, experiences and successes.
The Bolivarian administration granted organized
communities throughout Venezuela the right to local broadcasting licenses.
Despite opposition from traditional professional media associations such
as the Venezuelan Broadcasting Guild (Cámara Venezolana de
la Industria de la Radiodifusión), at least 9 TV and 38 radio stations,
some of which started out as “pirate” broadcasters, are now legally on the
air, along with a host of yet unlicensed broadcasters. In compliment there
are nearly 500 community newspapers and countless news websites as well.
Many of these news sources originate in barrio
communities and all of them are run by grassroots, “amateur” teams that
have learned their trade in hopes of serving their communities and breaking
the monopoly of information distribution that has strangled the nation.
Venezuelan community media is gaining much attention and support from international
independent media. Many are seeing the important role of community media
vs. alternative media; whereas the latter generally cover the same topics
as corporate media, community media dig deeper and reveal how the people
experience national and worldwide events. Community reporters gather and
present stories of life in areas that the corporate media have not bothered
to visit. They put cameras in the hands of the people themselves so that
they can tell their own story and share it with others.
This is crucial in Venezuela today where the
opposition-run corporate media completely ignore the programs being carried
out by the state and the people throughout the nation. Instead, the private
mass media keep the public busy with arguments about oil rents, Colombian
guerillas, and Chavez’ manners. Until recently, Venezuelan media consisted
of four corporate television channels and 10 corporate national newspapers,
all but one of which was blatantly and directly involved in the April 2002
coup. These outlets are in fact the skeleton of the opposition. They unabashedly
incite demonstrations, slander government figures, manipulate footage, and
blatantly publish obvious lies. During the two month oil strike that spanned
the turning of the last year, the TV stations ran not a single commercial
advertisement, but instead ran an average of 12 anti- Chavez advertisements
per hour (Maryknoll Lay Missioners, 2003; author’s pers. obs.)
Another major social movement sweeping the country
is the Bolivarian Circles (Circulos Bolivarianos or CB’s). CB’s began appearing
in 2000.[3] The government did not start them. They began as
community groups studying the Constitution and Venezuelan history and went
on to work on local community improvement projects. Later, neighboring
groups began addressing larger issues such as health and education. Eventually
these groups expressed their desire to participate directly in the making
of decisions that affect their communities. Realizing this desire, the president
called for the creation of the CBs as a mechanism for this participation
and many of the aforementioned community groups became CBs (Bruschtein,
2002).
There are now 2.2 million people formally registered
as CB members. Each Circle consists of 7- 10 individuals whose members
enjoy equal status. Each Circle’s immediate function is community involvement
consistent with the needs of their specific location. This participation
may manifest in diverse forms such as repairing neighborhood infrastructure,
promoting cultural events, or participating in nationwide programs. But
as Ulisis Castro, a member of the national coordination team points out,
many of these 200,000 Circles, due to a lack of guidance and assistance,
are not actively functioning in their communities (2003, pers. comm.)
Recognizing this deficiency and as if in response
to Garcia-Guadilla’s (2003: 193) concern that such small community groups
with narrow, material demands may disappear when their particular needs
are met and never grow into broad social movements, the Circles have taken
their organizational structure to a more complex level in addition to their
traditional, local character.
The CBs are now organizing themselves into Bolivarian
Houses (Casas Bolivarianas). This new structure seeks to unify the efforts
of the Circles, along with various other civil society associations, in
order to tackle complex issues that are regional, national or even international
in character. The first House was opened in the Caracas township “23 de
Enero” (“23rd of January”): a long time activist, barrio community. In the
next two years 1078 Casas will be opened: roughly one per parroquia.
CB literature describes Bolivarian Houses as
“community spaces for meetings, interchanges, articulation, unity and fortification
of the organizations, movements, and institutions linked to the construction
and consolidation of popular power and oriented in the defense, construction,
and development of the proposed project of the country and the new society
described by the Constitution.”
Participating civil associations will organize
themselves among 10 areas of activity according to their interests and
abilities: planning and development; education; social economy and productive
work; culture, and communications; food security; health and environment;
safety and social services; infrastructure, urbanization and transport;
tourism, recreation and sports; and Latin American integration, international
solidarity, and sovereignty.[4]
While opponents claim that Circles receive preferential
treatment in comparison to other neighborhood associations, the truth is
that Circles are eligible for funds under the same guidelines and from the
same sources as any other organized group as defined by FIDES, the Special
Law of Cooperatives, and similar laws regarding public resources. Circles
get no funding as an entity. Neither the national coordinator, nor any members
of the national coordination team staff, receives a salary. The national
coordinator specifically instructs Circles to seek funding through the local
channels established by the government for all groups of organized citizens.
The national office offers oversight, organizational infrastructure, logistical
and technical support, but has no resources itself. This is in keeping with
the Bolivarian imperative that the Revolution is of the people. They must
create it themselves.
Even Prior to the Bolivarian House Project, Bolivarian
Circles have worked in cooperation with other grassroots organizations
on an equal basis or in fact sometimes in a subordinate role to longer-lived
organizations. For example in the parroqia 23 de Enero, where there is
a long tradition of community activism, the Circles are seen as the new
kids on the block by older groups such as the Tupamaros and Coordinadora
Simon Bolivar, which continue to enjoy a more influential status in the
eyes of the community and the state.
With little resources and while often dealing
with harassment from local authorities, these types of community organizations
have been the cultural lifelines of barrio communities over the past several
decades. The revolutionary government has granted them official legitimacy
and recognition for their past work by piloting many of the new social
programs in their neighborhoods and handing over management of these programs
to them. In response, traditional groups are boldly tackling ever more ambitious
projects.
Some of these projects are being aided by the
military. In a country that has not fought a foreign war since colonial
times, many find it appropriate to broaden the definition of national security
to include domestic issues, therefore adding to the duty of the military
the defense of the public’s health and well-being. Taking on this new role,
the military has participated in disaster relief, school construction, road
building, and more. Twenty thousand homes were built through an Army-community
alliance called Avispa, a similar civil- military project called Reviba
has rebuilt 10,000 homes (Argerich, 2003), and soldier-aided Mega Markets
are selling 112,000 tons of food each month in poor regions at discount
prices (Toothaker, 2003).
To combat undernourishment in Venezuela and to
secure national food self-sufficiency the plan All hands to the Planting
(Todas las Manos a la Siembra) incorporates several programs such as the
Urban and Suburban Agricultural Program (Programa de Agricultura Urbana y
Periurbana) and Zamoran Farms (Fundos Zamoranos). The first program is a
campaign to turn abandoned urban land into community gardens. Army personnel,
Cuban agricultural experts, and neighborhood volunteers are working to move
2,470 acres of Caracas and surrounding areas into vegetable cultivation within
the year. The second program seeks to build civic- academic alliances. With
two pilot farms already in action, university students are earning degrees
in agricultural disciplines working alongside experienced farmers employed
from the surrounding community.
Along with the unconventional social movements
mentioned above, Venezuela has its share of traditional-style social organizations.
What is interesting is that there are a large number of parallel organizations
separated by whether or not they are in agreement with the Bolivarian Plan.
For example, along side the traditional National Women’s Organization is
the Bolivarian Women’s Movement, accompanying the Venezuelan Workers Confederation
and the is the Bolivarian Workers Federation, countering the Accion Democratica
Youth is the Bolivarian Youth Foundation. There are Bolivarian student
organizations and Bolivarian federations of doctors and the list goes on.
These Bolivarian versions tend to concern themselves with the same issues
as their counterparts, but usually see a completely different path to resolution.
While some feel that this factionalism has diluted the forces of the movements
as a whole (Garcia-Guadilla, 2003: 193), many recognize these new groups
to be stepping outside the usual boundaries of “issue activism,” to see
the goals of their movement as part of a larger overall transformation
of society.
It is important not to disqualify the networks
of cooperatives, Bolivarian Circles, community media, civil- military alliances,
and Bolivarian versions of traditional social organizations, from being
considered popular social movements just because they share the ideology
of the current administration and because they enjoy official logistical,
moral and sometimes indirect financial support. Hugo Chavez is not only
the president of a country, the commander and chief of a military, and the
figurehead of a political coalition, but also the leader of a grassroots
social movement that began decades ago.
More and more sectors of society are organizing
themselves and aligning themselves with ‘el proceso” (The Process: the
popular colloquialism for the overall Bolivarian Plan) the stated ultimate
goal of which is to create a new society that is fueled by universal participation
and based on social justice and equality. Numerous associations are attempting
to insure that this process will continue whether or not they have a representative
in the presidential palace by cultivating current popular enthusiasm for
participation that stems from the people’s newfound sense of power and purpose.
Social organizations that are opposed to the
Bolivarian movement complain that they are not being taken into account by
the current administration. A good many of these groups were active participants
in the writing of the Fifth Republic Constitution, but discovered that in
the end they were not in agreement with the document or at least not with
its interpretation. Some complain that the established rules of dialog
between civil society and the state are not functioning. Bolstered by the
old economic elites who are losing their grasp on the nation’s wealth, many
of these groups have promoted and participated in civil disturbances, strikes,
and the unprecedented propaganda war.
“…Civil Society recognizes the democratic legitimacy
of the new provisional President of the Republic of Venezuela, Dr. Pedro
Carmona Estanga …” This document of recognition signed by directors of upper-middle-class
social organizations such as Queremos Elegir (We Want to Choose), Ciudadanía
Activa (Active Citizenship), Visión Emergente (Emergent Vision),
Frente Institucional Militar (Institutional Military Front), Red de Veedores
(Electoral Observers Network) illustrates the complicity of these social
organizations in the April, 2002 coup d'état that cost the country
over $1 billion (PROVEA, 2002).
Later these same disgruntled groups, who still
hold the keys to much of the nation’s money making apparatus, participated
in a strike that immediately cost Venezuela an estimated $7 billion, or
about 9 percent of gross domestic product (Roth 2003). The long-term damage
is not assessable. If the Chavez government did not have a legitimate excuse
for excluding these groups from the definition of Civil Society before 2002,
as the opposition claims, certainly the reasoning behind exclusion at this
date, if it were in fact the case, would be clear.
Detractors also claim that they are being discriminated
against for access to public resources and they complain that government
contracts should be given out according to free market competition. In reality,
laws pertaining to the allocation of public funds do not contain any wording
that can be used to discriminate against any project based on political
affiliation. However, as the opposition is typically comprised of citizens
of the upper economic echelon and the Fourth Republic business community,
they are less likely to be interested in forming cooperatives and doing
community service that would fulfill criteria for funding eligibility.
Also, the Law of FIDES does state that funds will be prioritized to the
most vulnerable areas and for the most critical needs. This would, in all
likelihood, lead to the exclusion of upper class Altamira residents, unless
they requested funds for projects that transcend their communities. [5]
Is this fair? It is well known that for at least
forty years, Venezuelan businesses and their foreign custodians were furnished
government contracts based not on free market competition, but on friendships
or in exchange for campaign contributions and kickbacks. The earnings from
these deals by and large were converted to dollars and kept in foreign
banks. Very little private money was invested in research and development
of new technologies and industries. In fact, many industries were completely
abandoned, leading to such strange phenomena as a rich-soiled, large-landed
country importing most of its food.
The Fourth Republic business community could
have spearheaded the diversification of the productive economy, but instead,
narrow self-interest and lack of patriotic commitment greatly contributed
to the economic disaster of the 80’s and 90’s. Because the traditional business
community did not step up to the plate when the opportunity was given them
in the past, the government today is looking to the new movers and shakers
of the country: “el pueblo unido” (the organized community).
Some critics assert that campesinos, barrio dwellers,
and Indigenous peoples are incapable or at least ill equipped to take on
the rebuilding of a nation; this outlook is little more than thinly veiled
vanguardist prejudice and it is much resented by the barrio activists who
have struggled within their communities for decades with no outside help
at all. While it is true that much training and technical and organizational
support will be necessary, it is being provided. The principal obstacles
confronting the success of the Bolivarian project, from the official point
of view is the absence of a culture of participation and the persistence
of the values of representative democracy. Lack of cultural and national
identity, passivity, apathy, corruption, and individualism stand in the way
of Venezuela’s transformation (Red de Redes Politico Social, 2001). The Bolivarian
model asserts that everyone has the right, duty and ability to participate
in the molding and governing of society.
Nowhere has this faith been officially extended
to include Indigenous communities as it has been in Venezuela. The Bolivarian
Constitution recognizes the Indigenous community in a way that is unequalled
anywhere on the continent. It has raised the bar and set the standard of
expectation for natives all across the Americas. In general terms the Constitution
gives indigenous peoples ownership rights to their traditionally held lands.
It recognizes their culture and political traditions and the right to self-governance.
It considers native languages as the official language in their respective
communities and formalizes intercultural, bilingual education. Thirty Indigenous
organizations together make up the second most active social sector in
the nation today, participating in various movements, cooperatives, and
programs.
The integration of movements across issues is
probably the most significant feature of the Revolution. Across the globe
social movements separately tackle a diverse array of concerns. Occasionally
movements belonging to the same “camp” will form alliances, but quite often,
narrow specific interests create factionalism and conflict. Rarely, and
only recently have coalitions been formed between different camps, such
as between labor and environmental activists. The Bolivarian Revolution
is formally taking a bold, unique road of integration via networks of cooperatives,
Bolivarian Houses, etc., that function to pull together the efforts of traditional
activist camps in hopes of eliminating the inefficiency and clashes that
plague “issue” activism. The world is watching as the experiment unfolds
and some are even signing on.
While traditional solidarity movements exist
throughout the world that support the Bolivarian Revolution, specific issues
of civil society, or simply Venezuela’s right to sovereignty; there is a
more profound and peculiar phenomenon occurring. Members of the international
community are adopting the Revolution’s fundamental principles and joining
“el processo” by taking them home with them. For example, there are
22 Bolivarian Circles in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. According
to CB literature, the function of international Circles is not only to perform
acts of solidarity, but also to work for the improvement and empowerment
of their own communities. This is an important departure from the usual patronizing
stance of solidarity movements. It shows genuine recognition and emulation
of the Bolivarian process.
These types of cross border relationships are
forming among Indigenous peoples, land workers, independent media, etc.
Government supporters claim that Venezuela’s vision for the future is not
based on leaving behind its history and discarding its culture to mimic
another, but instead is based on Venezuela’s ability to embrace its history
and to draw from its own culture so as to construct a unique model of development
that is flexible and transferable across nations. The Bolivarian Revolution
invites us all to join in the making of our collective future.
References:
Argerich, John (2003) Accomplishments of the
Bolivarian Process. Malmoe, Sweden: Centro de Estudios Simon Bolivar, http://hem.fyistorg.com/bolivar.media
Bruschtein, Luis 2002 “Rodrigo Chaves, Coordinador
General de los Circulos Bolivarianos de Venezuela: Charla Bolivariana”
En Marcha 185 (August) http://www.patrialibre.org.ar/n185.htm#int
Garcia- Guadilla, Maria Pilar 2003 “ Civil Society”
pp.179-196 in Steve Ellner and Daniel Hellinger (eds.) , Venezuelan Politics
in the Chavez Era: Class, Polarization & Conflict. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Government Publication 2003 “Gestion en Graphicos”
Caracas: SUNACOOP http://www.sunacoop.gov.ve/
Kerrilla, Christano 2003 “Venezuela: Class struggle
on the rise in urban and rural areas” Green Left Weekly (May 21)
Ley Especial de Asociaciones Cooperativas 2001
Caracas: Gaceta Oficial 37.285 (September 18) (http://www.colac.com/leyes/pdf/venezuela.pdf)
Maryknoll Lay Missioners, 2003 “The unheard voices
in the Venezuelan crisis: A Statement by the Maryknoll Lay Missioners In
Venezuela” Washington D.C.: Catholic News Service
PROVEA 2002 Situation de los Derechos Humanos
en Venezuela: Informe Anual (Octubre 2001/ Septiembre) Caracas: PROVEA
http://www.derechos.org.ve/ongs_ven/provea
Red de Redes Politico Social 2001 “El Papel de
la Redes Sociales en el Proceso de Transformacion de Venezuela” Convocation
speech: Primer Encuentro Nacional de Redes y Organizaciones Sociales. Caracas:
Constituyente Universitaria http://members.fortunecity.com/constituyenteuc/id70_m.htm
Roth, Charles 2003 “Ex- PDVSA exec: Venezuela
Chavez using oil co as weapon.” Petroleum World.com (March 7) http://www.petroleumworld.com/storyT699.htm
Toothaker, Christopher 2003 “Venezuela sends
soldiers, seeds to fight city hunger” Modesto Bee (August, 18)
[1] During 1989-92 Constitutional reforms, of 36 proposals
considered only two were presented by social organizations. Of 128 articles
making up the 1992 reforms, only five were drafted by social groups (Garcia-
Guadilla, 2003: 184-185).
[2] Of these three eligible entities, the most loosely
defined is “organized communities”. The law's description is: any group that
shares a common territory and that associates itself to attend to common
situations and problems. In order to attain funds for projects all entities
must demonstrate that they have the experience and institutional and structural
capacity required for the efficient development of projects that are related
to the attendance of communities of high vulnerability. The law further defines
eligible projects under two categories: Productive investment, oriented towards
the generation of goods and services according to the needs and priorities
of their respective communities; and self- or co- governance, the definition
of which is extensive, including creating daycare centers and drug rehabilitation
programs, neighborhood vigilance and protection of local flora and fauna.
[3] Lopez Maya (2003: 80) states that the Bolivarian Circles
were the base unit of the MBR-200 in its formative years. Summing up accounts,
it appears that these cells were actually called Circulos Bolivarianos
Revolucionarios (Revolutionary Bolivarian Circles) and are not directly
related to the current CB’s.
[5] Retired University of Caracas ecology professor
Luis Levin explained to the author that after more than one year of solicitation,
he has found almost no interest from his neighbors in collaborating with
him on the renovation of an amphitheater in an upper-class region of Caracas.
Dr. Levin has struggled to create a nature trail and wildlife feeding station
that school groups frequent for field trips.
