Commentary

Manufacturing Dissent: Venezuela's "Popular Revolt"

The sight of thousands of demonstrators, waving the colours of the Venezuelan flag and calling for freedom automatically elicits a sympathetic response from progressive and democratic people. Images of these demonstrators, banging on their pots and pans and chanting slogans, seems like a Venezuelan echo of the protests that brought down the handful of IMF-puppet rulers in Argentina a year ago; while breathless media reports of how the "strikers" are bringing the country's oil industry to its knees create the impression that the collapse of the presidency of Hugo Chavez is imminent.

Yet the most cursory examination of the facts leads one to conclude that things are not what they seem.

There is the most undeniable fact that Chavez has been elected - twice - by a majority of Venezuelans (just over 60 per cent, each time).

While the demonstrators are calling for early presidential elections or a referendum on Chavez' presidency, the constitution, one of the most progressive in Latin America, clearly sets out, among other things, a six-year presidential term, with the right to recall through a referendum after three years. This constitution was enacted by the Chavez government in 1999 after a binding national referendum in which a large majority of Venezuelans voted to adopt it.

This "popular revolt" or "general strike"', as it is constantly being described in the media, has failed miserably in attracting more than the economic elite who have always hated Chavez for his progressive social policies and the section of the middle class that thinks its fortunes lie with this elite. If this was truly a popular revolt or a national general strike, how could the Chavez presidency have survived into what is now the fifth week?

This is not the first carefully orchestrated attempt to bring down the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Some of those implicated in the unsuccessful April 2002 coup, most notably Carlos Ortega, are the spokespersons for the current protests. It is worth remembering that the coup fell in 48 hours when the people of Venezuela took to the streets to demand the return to democratic rule.

Despite media reports to the contrary, oil production has been slowly normalizing. Oil production is Venezuela's lifeblood. The petroleum sector represents one-third of GDP, 80 per cent of the country's export earnings and more than half of the government's operating revenues. The Venezuelan government has moved quickly and strategically to paint striking oil executives as national traitors and has called on rank and file workers to step in and ensure normal functioning of the state petroleum company (PDVSA) by the end of January.

At full capacity, Venezuela, the fifth-largest oil exporter in the world, produces 2.7 million barrels per day. This number has dropped to between 600,000 and 700,000 barrels per day, but is expected to rise to 1.2 million barrels per day by the end of this week, according to Rafael Ramirez, minister of energy.

It would seem, then, that the "popular uprising" is a case of manufactured dissent - and the question remains, manufactured by whom? Obviously, the Venezuelan economic elite is eager to get rid of Chavez. Indeed, they have thought of little else since he was first elected in 1999, and have already organized one coup and another attempted coup. Their current strategy seems to be to force Chavez from office by destroying the country's economy.

However, one of the most interesting things about the crisis in Venezuela has been the inability of U.S. imperialism to achieve its aims. Washington is widely believed to have provided at least tacit and probably material support for last April's coup attempt. Indeed, after Chavez was overthrown, Bush's point man on Latin America, Otto Reich (a Cuban-American with ties to extremist anti-Castro groups) is reported to have informed Latin American and Caribbean ambassadors to Washington that the Administration would move quickly to recognize the coup's leader, Carmona, as the head of the country. While this support was quickly withdrawn when it became evident Chavez would prevail, Bush's foreign affairs advisor Condoleeza Rice told the media she hoped Chavez had "learned his lesson".

Since the beginning of the December "strike", the Americans have been calling for early elections or a plebiscite on Chavez. Most recently, they tried to exert pressure on the Organization of American States to endorse the call for early elections. Surprisingly, though, the OAS, whose past history has been one of rubber stamping American dictates, expressed strong support for the democratically elected government in Venezuela. In a resolution passed December 17, the OAS Permanent Council stated it "fully supports the democratic and constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whose government is headed by Hugo Chavez Frias and rejects categorically any attempt at a coup d'état or unconstitutional alteration of the Venezuelan constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order."