Atenea Jiménez is a Venezuelan sociologist and co-founder of the Alliance for Sovereignty and Democracy (ASD), which is bringing together various Venezuelan left movements and activists.
Green Left’s Federico Fuentes sat down with Jiménez to discuss the new alliance’s views on the Nicolás Maduro government and traditional right-wing opposition.
* * *
Could you tell us a bit about ASD?
ASD involves diverse left currents who have united to promote a vision for the country and help recuperate democracy and sovereignty.
The alliance includes various left and humanist organisations.
It also includes left figures — university professors, personalities from the arts and culture, and, above all, ex-ministers from the Hugo Chávez and Maduro governments — that supported Chávez while maintaining a critical stance and that have been raising the alarm for some time about the direction of the country.
Some left-wing organisations, movements and parties that did not support Chávez are also involved.
Some might ask: why an alliance “for sovereignty and democracy” given the Chávez and Maduro governments have been associated with defending sovereignty and expanding democracy?
The Maduro government has become authoritarian — today we define it as a dictatorship.
But this did not happen abruptly, it is the result of a steady process of violating the constitution and laws passed under the Chávez government, and of bypassing existing democratic institutional frameworks. Right now there is no constitution in practice, the population has no rights.
Moreover, our sovereignty has also been violated. By this we mean national sovereignty, which has to do with defending our territory, the assets of the republic, its resources and population.
But we also mean popular sovereignty, which according to the constitution is exercised both through elections and participatory and protagonist democracy — popular assemblies, direct democracy, etc. The right to vote and direct democracy have both been tossed aside.
The entire process that occurred [under Chávez] has been progressively dismantled.
Given the gravity of the situation, we have decided that it is up to us to struggle — like we did before Chávez and during the Chávez government (which had its own contradictions) — for the rights of workers and society in general.
We must fight for the constitution, which is what unites us as Venezuelans. We may or may not agree with everything in it, but it is the constitution that we came up with and voted for [in 1999, when the new constitution was approved in a referendum].
Another axis of our campaigning is to free the political prisoners. This is a struggle for justice and human rights that today unites Venezuelan society as a whole. It is crucial to ensuring prisoners are not used as a weapon of negotiation and a means to demobilise and demoralise society’s rebellious spirit.
What is your view of the current opposition leadership?
To understand Venezuela today, we have to apply a dialectical analysis and understand that politics is not static. Party politics today are nothing like they were between 2014–19.
To start with, we have to understand that Maduro is allied with the capitalist class and has adopted policies that perfectly align with a neoliberal program: deregulation, casualisation, exploitation, elimination of salaries, enormous profits for business owners, handover of territories to multinationals, etc.
Faced with this, the parties of the capitalist class — the main opposition parties [to Chavez and Maduro] — have gone into crisis, precisely because a large part of that capitalist class that previously backed them and whom they represented, is now with Maduro.
That is why the traditional opposition parties have been moderating their views. I am not saying they are not neoliberal parties or that there are no extreme right-wing parties within the opposition — although there is also an extreme right in government. But the opposition has shifted its conception of the situation as a result of no longer being backed by the capitalist class.
The other thing is that Venezuela has historically been an anti-neoliberal country and the majority of the Venezuelan people today are basically social democratic: they want to live well; they want rights, services and living conditions that allow them to satisfy their needs; and they want to live in a democracy.
This majority voted for opposition parties. As did a minority of the population that continues to defend the achievements of the Chávez government.
This has led many to ask internationally: “How did the country go from everyone voting for Chávez to everyone voting for [far right opposition leader] María Corina Machado?”, because people basically voted for her.
Well, the explanation lies in this contradiction. Evidently, the opposition leaders come from the capitalist class — no one can deny that — but today they in some way represent that majority that aspires to a free and dignified life, and therefore voted against Maduro.
They see hope in Machado, but ultimately do not support a revamped neoliberal program.
That is why the opposition find themselves caught in this severe contradiction: their class extraction is capitalist, but those that politically support them are mainly workers who do not support Maduro and his neoliberal policies.
Faced with this, we propose constructing a politics for the workers, the campesinos, the popular movements, for the Chavismo that continues to revindicate Chávez but has serious criticisms about what has happened [under Maduro], and for the majority that want to live in peace and democracy.
But if the traditional opposition has the support of the majority, why does it continue to look outside the country for help to remove Maduro?
Because the liberal conception of politics is very idealist and has little perspective when it comes to building a movement.
Obviously, that is difficult today with a government that says it represents a “civic-military-police alliance” — this alliance of state terrorism is basically its main strength. But the traditional opposition has never sought to build a movement, to build popular strength, to build organisation.
With the consummation of the July 28 electoral fraud seemingly closing off the electoral road, the only option they can envision is obtaining support abroad to generate some kind of internal change.
We believe it is wrong to place Venezuela’s domestic affairs in the hands of the United States or any other country. Hoping for a solution to come from outside of the country is a sign of great weakness.
A genuine opposition needs to root its work, plans and program within Venezuelan society and focus on building an alternative within Venezuela.
We believe in building, in activism, and that the people must have protagonism. But for them, people organising themselves and assuming protagonism is a risk, because when that happens people become a subject in and for themselves, and liberal politicians see that as dangerous.
Why do you believe the traditional opposition has been able to channel the discontent that exists with Maduro and not a left opposition?
The truth is that the parties and movements that backed [Chávez's] project entered into an important crisis when it descended into authoritarianism and dictatorship [under Maduro].
There are diverse interpretations for why this happened — in fact, there still are. We should have a single platform involving everyone, but this does not exist because of these different assessments.
It also has to do with the government’s policy of repressing the left. The government has been much more repressive towards the left than the traditional opposition. It has not allowed new [left-wing] parties to emerge and stripped existing parties of the ability to participate in elections.
There are also a number of leaders in jail or being persecuted.
What is the current state of the movement that made up Chavismo’s base?
The popular movements, the campesino movements, the urban movements, etc have been greatly affected.
There has been a process of dismantling the social fabric, of strong [state] intervention into society, of social-political control over society. This has had a tremendous effect, because the fabric of society requires confidence and the building of networks and spaces where people can come together.
Today in Venezuela it is very difficult to hold a meeting or assembly like we used to, because many leaders of the UBChs [Unidades de Batalla Hugo Chávez (Hugo Chávez Battle Units), the local units of the governing Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (United Socialist Party of Venezuela)], as well as some sectors that used to be part of the popular movement, operate much like a political police.
There are no safe ways to organise. It is quite hard to say this, but it is there for all to see.
This has an impact on the strength of those socio-territorial movements that existed and continue to exist today. They have had to readjust, in terms of strategies and tactics, in order to continue doing politics in this new situation.
There are also other elements — migration, economic crisis, crime — that have had an impact, but spaces for organising still exist.
Most importantly, there is still a spirit and willingness within society to fight and build; to find ways to struggle against the collapse of [Chávez’s] project and to build anew.
Those of us who for many years have been working as grassroots activists are seeking ways to come together. It is a positive sign that, despite the adversities, there remains a reserve of activism, organisation and organic self-organisation.