Reflections from the Venezuela Constitutional Reform Referendum

by Carlos Martinez, Global Exchange

I thought dictators couldn't lose elections! Of course I'm kidding, but if you have not received the news, the No vote won in the referendum on constitutional changes proposed by President Chavez and the Chavista dominated National Assembly.  I had the amazing opportunity to support the work of Radio Venezuela En Vivo during these last few days, which was a remarkable grassroots effort to keep the world updated with accurate news and analysis throughout this electoral process.  While the radio experienced a number of challenges and problems at first, in the end it was an amazing success with hundreds of listeners tuning in.  If you never tuned in to our broadcast, we are still on air and our archives can also be accessed to listen to earlier reports at www.radiovenezuelaenvivo.blogspot.com .

 Last night was a very tense evening for all in Venezuela, awaiting the final results of the referendum while varying rumors about the outcome came every few minutes with the only certainty being that the vote was closer than many expected.  I was in front of Miraflores, the presidential palace, at the time the results were released.  As one can imagine, there were many teary eyes and bowed heads in what was a particularly perplexing moment for a people not accustomed to losing for a very long time.

 The image that appeared on the massive video screens in front of the palace immediately after the results were read was that of an unusually somber faced Chavez. What followed may have been even more unexpected for those in the opposition and weary of Chavez's unrelenting bravado. In contrast to the lack of diplomacy that many now associate him with, Chavez went on to gracefully concede the election and congratulated his adversaries.  This was especially significant considering the closeness of the margin, with 4,504,354 votes against, (50.70%) and 4,379,392, (49.29%) for the YES. Chavez went on to say that he was happy to see the election end peacefully.

 While many in the progressive community have been trying to argue that democracy is in fact alive and well in Venezuela for so long now, it has been a difficult argument to maintain with Chavez always on the winning side. Certainly, Chavez's concession of the vote and his request that those in favor of the SI recognize the results serves to delegitimize those that continue to call Chavez an "aspiring tyrant" as Donald Rumsfeld did in his editorial released yesterday entitled ""The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html)

 A TIME FOR REFLECTION & EVALUATION
 December has arrived and Venezuela basically closes down at this time of year. It will be an important time for reflection for those in
support of the Bolivarian process.

 There are many reasons that one could offer to explain the outcome of this election.  Many are pointing to the powerful disinformation campaign launched by the opposition with heavy financial support from the United States. It is true that to a great degree the constitutional changes themselves were not actually voted on yesterday, but rather people's perceptions of the reform.  Many did go to polls still believing that their children or their third car or their home could be taken away by the government, although in reality the constitution did not contain any such articles and actually reiterated its recognition of private property.

 It is evident that many in the Chavista camp abstained from voting or actually voted against the referendum.  It has been said that this outcome is not an indication of a growing opposition but rather reflects those who have traditionally been supportive of Chavez but remain tied to a bureaucratic vision of governance and do not want their own power challenged.  There has also been talk of disillusionment amongst the popular sectors, the poor and working class citizens who have been considered the real base of support for the Bolivarian Revolution.  While this constitutional reform did
receive a wide amount of consultation from a variety of social movements, there are some who believe that the participation was not profound enough for a country seeking to establish a radical model of democracy and whose citizens want to truly be at the forefront of change.

 Regardless of what the actual reasons were for the outcome, those supporting more radical changes will undoubtedly be in a state of serious evaluation to try to figure out what this means for Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution.  Chavez proclaimed in his concession speech "por ahora no pudimos", for now we could not, repeating the famous phrase he made in 1992 after his failed attempt at taking power through staging a military coup.  Many are hopeful that this is another necessary step needed for the Bolivarian Revolution to evolve and deepen, possibly even beyond Chavez and with a greater focus on doing base building at the grassroots.  Indeed many of the changes proposed did not need to be made through the process of a constitutional reform and many believe that the next steps needed to deepen the process such as the expansion of the communal councils, the
acceleration of the land reform, and the growth of a grassroots economy really depend on the role that social movements play and how determined the government is in supporting them.

 Below is an important statement released by the US-based Venezuela Solidarity Network calling for the recognition of democracy in Venezuela by the United States government and international press...maybe now that Chavez has lost they can actually admit to it.

Venezuela Solidarity Network (US) Statement on the Dec. 2, 2007 Referendum
Dec. 3, 2007

 With a registered voter turn-out of about 55%, Venezuelan voters rejected two referendum questions asking for approval of a total of 69 amendments to their constitution. Each question was defeated by a margin of 1.5 percentage points.

 As a result, Venezuelans will not have a constitution that gives them a 36 hour work week, that gives informal sector workers social security, that recognizes the contributions of African and indigenous peoples to the building of Venezuelan identity, that eliminates discrimination in all forms. They also won't have a seven year presidential term without term limits, definitions for the four classes of property, and other changes that – on paper –  would move the country more rapidly toward what is being called "21st century socialism."

 Venezuelans get to vote on constitutional amendments unlike citizens in the United States.  In the US, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must approve an amendment and then it must be approved by three quarters of the state legislatures.  Voters never get a direct say.  Which country has the greater democracy? With 11 national votes in the past nine years since Hugo Chavez was first elected president in 1998, is it any wonder that Venezuelans follow only Uruguay among Latin Americans in their satisfaction with their democracy?

 It is time for the US government and the US corporate media to acknowledge that Venezuela is a vibrant democracy and that Hugo Chavez is its elected president.  He is not a dictator and he obviously does not have autocratic control of the system or the amendments he supported would not have been voted down.

 It is time for the US government and the US corporate media to acknowledge that freedom of speech and assembly are alive and well in Venezuela.  The wealthy opposition to the "Bolivarian process" owns the great majority of print and electronic media and was completely free to attack the proposed amendments and Chavez himself, which it did daily and in language that we would never see outside of blogs in the United States.

 It is time for the US government and US corporate media to acknowledge that Venezuela's electoral process is free and fair.  Its electronic voting machines issue paper receipts which make fraud almost impossible.  We only can wish that electronic voting in the US were as reliable.  A defeat by only 1-1/2 percent would have been converted to a victory by those in power in many countries.  Mexico's long tradition of dirty elections easily comes to mind.

 It is time for the US government to stop interfering in Venezuela's democracy and time for the US corporate media to stop aiding and abetting it.  Reports are that the US government, through the US Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy, spent $8 million of US taxpayer's money to influence the vote on the referendum.  That would be the equivalent of a foreign country spending $92.6 million on a national referendum – if we had such a democratic tool – in the US.  Would we tolerate that? The Venezuela Solidarity Network organized a delegation to Venezuela in October of 1996 to investigate US government interference in that year's presidential election.  The US embassy official who met with us freely admitted that the US was spending $26 million on Venezuela's presidential election.  What would be the reaction in the US if Venezuela spent the equivalent $301 million on our upcoming presidential election?

 It is time for the US government to close the Office of Transition Initiatives housed in the US embassy in Caracas.  Venezuela's transition to a real democracy that began with the rejection of the old political parties of the elites in 1998 is alive and well and doesn't need any so-called "democracy building" from the United States.  Indeed, there's a lot we could learn about democracy from the Venezuelans.