Roberto Jorquera
The National Assembly (AN) elections held on December 4 marked another significant step forward in Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution led by socialist president Hugo Chavez. Pro-Chavez candidates won all 167 seats, receiving nearly 90% of the vote. Chavez's party, the Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR), won 68% of the vote, taking more than two-thirds of the seats. It was the tenth straight electoral victory for Chavez since he was elected president in 1998, and a sign of the growing popularity of the revolutionary process that is working to redistribute the oil-rich nation's wealth to build a new Venezuela based on the principles of social justice and participatory democracy.
Just days before the election, the main opposition parties — Democratic Action (AD), the Social Christians (COPEI), Justice First (Primera Justicia) and Movement for Socialism (MAS) — all withdrew from, citing problems with the electoral process. This was despite all international observers, including those from the Carter Centre and European Union, stating they could not find any significant problems with the process run by the National Electoral Council.
The real issue behind the boycott was the fear among the opposition parties that they would get wiped off the political spectrum. Since 1998, the total number of people who have voted for the Chavez forces has increased from 1.98 million in 1998 to 3.2 million in 2005. Numerous polls indicated that the opposition would only receive 17 out of the 167 seats in the AN. Prior to the elections, the opposition held 76 seats.
The boycott meant that 50% of the opposition candidates withdrew from the elections — 10% of all candidates (556 out of 5516). The opposition condemned the electoral results, citing the low voter turnout as a sign that Chavez had lost political credibility. The Venezuelan media, which is dominated by the opposition, ran headlines condemning the electoral process. However the statistics behind the elections tell a very different story.
Andy Goodall from Venezuela Solidarity UK wrote on December 12: "In 1998, the Democratic Action Party won control of the then Congress with 11.24% of voter support from an electoral universe of approximately 10.9 million voters. This party received 1.24 million votes. In the 2000 elections, the Chavez Fifth Republic Movement won control of the National Assembly with 17% or 1.98 million votes of the electoral universe of 11.7 million voters. In the elections on December 4th 2005, the six parties in the Chavez alliance received between 22%-23% support of the electoral universe of 14.4 million voters or approximately 3.2 million votes.
"Conclusion — no-one in 1998 or 2000 even mentioned that the National Assembly was not 'legitimate' being controlled by parties with 11.24% and 17% respectively. So, why are opposition right wingers saying that this National Assembly is not 'legitimate' when 22%-23% of the electoral universe supported it?"
The overwhelming electoral success puts Chavez in a stronger position to speed up major changes to the constitution, which could facilitate further economic, political and social change. On January 5, the new AN was officially opened. Chavez said at the opening that a new assembly was needed — "a national assembly of the streets". This was a direct response to the criticism that the previous AN was not doing its job in representing people. On December 6, Venezuelanalysis.com quoted MVR deputy Daniel Hernandez's comments about the new assembly: "Before, the congress represented the oligarchy and was, for 130 years, subordinated to the elite. Now it is human in its quality."
The new AN re-elected Nicolas Maduro as its president, Desiree Santos Amaral as its first vice-president and Roberto Hernandez from the Communist Party as its second vice-president. Thirty per cent of the deputies are women, the highest percentage in Venezuelan history. Dr Carolus Wimmer, the Communist Party's international relations secretary and deputy to the Latin American Parliament, told Green Left Weekly on January 8 that the election of a Communist Party member to the position of vice-president of the AN was a "clear indication of the direction of the revolution".
The new mandate for Chavez will open up the space to deepen the Bolivarian revolutionary process. The main challenges facing the Chavez government will be the further restructuring of the economy to bring more of it into public control, and land redistribution in the urban and rural sectors. Urban Land Committees (CUT) have started to register land claims among the barrios (neighbourhoods), which account for an overwhelming majority of the urban poor. Since the 1970s oil boom, millions moved to the cities and started to occupy land and build houses. The government is working with the poor communities, via the elected CUTs, to grant titles giving legal ownership to the inhabitants of occupied land.
The US administration's response to the electoral victory was not surprising, claiming that Venezuela had an "elected totalitarian" regime. Increasingly, the US is losing political control of the region. Increasing ties between Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia and likely increasing ties with the new president of Chile Michelle Bachelet have isolated the US. Though not all these governments share the revolutionary outlook of the Chavez government, Venezuela has been able to unite them against the US empire, mainly by promoting a new Latin American economic integration that gives these nations more breathing space from US domination. Due to Venezuela's massive oil wealth (as the fifth largest producer in the world), it has been able to sign a number of economic agreements with countries across the region.
The effective destruction of the pro-capitalist opposition on an electoral level will potentially raise new challenges for the Bolivarian revolution. US-based Latin American specialist James Petras wrote in an article in Counter Punch on December 13 that an option for the opposition "is a turn to violent extra-parliamentary action and recruitment of some military or intelligence officials of ambiguous loyalties. We can expect a few bombings as took place on Election Day — blowing up of an oil pipeline and a stick of dynamite being tossed next to a Caracas military base. Neither of these had major repercussions."
Petras points out that the Venezuelan opposition's confrontational approach, pushed by Washington, has meant it has lost almost all of its institutional power. "What remain are the private mass media, which can still mount a formidable anti-government, pro-US propaganda campaign. The US can be counted on to strengthen and perhaps radicalize its message, in hopes of provoking a crackdown, under the bizarre belief that the 'worse the better'."
Attempts by Washington to pressure Colombia to create border conflicts are unlikely to be successful, Petras argues. "Venezuelan-Colombian trade is growing rapidly and amounts to $3 billion dollars, greater than Colombia's trade with the US. Moreover, Venezuela is Colombia's most important market for manufactured goods (accounting for 25 per cent of the total). With a major billion-dollar Venezuelan gas and petrol pipeline passing through Colombia, there is hardly a rancher, industrialist or banker supporting a US-backed Colombian foray into Venezuela."
According to Petras, this leaves the US with two possible levers — the NGOs and clandestine terrorists. But he points out that the dependence of NGOs like Sumate on US financing has decreased their legitimacy, and their numerous failed campaigns have demoralised their support base. On armed clandestine forces, Petras argues: "Without totally disregarding their capacity to set off bombs, terrorism is likely to boomerang — strengthen popular demands for greater security measures — a 'mano duro' (strong hand)."
From Green Left Weekly, January 25, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.