What's
At Stake In Venezuela
By Claudia Jardim
and Jonah Gindin
25 July, 2004
Venezuelanalysis.com
How do you explain
the explosion in social movements against neoliberalism in Latin America?
I think the reason
for this is that Latin America was used as a laboratory by the United
States for a long, long time. Everything the US wanted was experimented
in Latin America first. When they wanted militaryon the political
levelwhen they wanted to crush popular movements by unleashing
military dictatorships they did it in Latin America first: Brazil, Argentina,
Chile; three of the most brutal dictatorships we have seen. Then, after
the collapse of the communist enemy, they relaxed on the political front
but they got Latin America in a grip economically, and they said this
is the only way forward. We can summarize it like this: the laboratory
of the American Empire is the first to rebel against the Empire. So
many many different and interesting processes are happening in Latin
America and I think where the left is weak is in its inability to bring
these together and to refound the Latin American left.
What began to happen
in Latin America is a process of de-industrialization; foreign investments
coming in. In the most classic examples were Chile under Pinochet, then
Brazil under Cardoso and Argentina under successive governments. They
de-industrialized the country, they thought that the country could function
in a bubblean economic bubble created by a false boom, a boom
which was largely fuelled by foreign investment, foreign moneys coming
into banks where there were low interest rates. So people used to use
this to invest, but whenever the investments got risky they used to
take them outinternational capital. They had absolutely no motivation
for building Brazil or Argentina so you gradually began to have the
rise of a new social movement which arose from below: peasant movements,
landless peasant movements, unemployed working class movements which
began to challenge this initially on a micro-level, in villages, in
one town, in one locality, in one region. And then gra! dually it began
to spread.
The result was continent wide protests...
You had an uprising
in Cochabamba in Bolivia against the privatization of water. You had
a struggle of the peasants of Cuzco in Peru, against the privatization
of electricity. On both struggles the government made repression first
and then they had to retreat. Then you had an unbelievable collapse
in Argentina, where within three weeks I think 4 or 5 presidents came
and fell. That began to demonstrate very graphically the crisis of neoliberal
capitalism. Then you had Brazil. In Brazil you had a situation where
Cardoso had de-industrialized the country completely. There was no national
bourgeoisie left, there were no national traditions within the capitalist
sphere left, and the country began to suffer.
Do you see the
US Empire absorbing this energy by trying to propose a softer version
of neoliberalism?
I dont think
they are, at the moment, prepared to do that. They will only do that
if they feel threatened. And they dont feel threatened at the
moment. And one reasonI have to be very blunt herethey dont
feel threatened is because there is an idealistic slogan within the
social movements, which goes like this: We can change the world
without taking power. This slogan doesnt threaten anyone;
its a moral slogan. The Zapatistaswho I admireyou
know, when they marched from Chiapas to Mexico City, what did they think
was going to happen? Nothing happened. It was a moral symbol, it was
not even a moral victory because nothing happened. So I think that phase
was understandable in Latin American politics, people were very burnt
by recent experiences: the defeat of the Sandinistas, the defeat of
the armed struggle movements, the victory of the military, etc., so
people where nervous. But I think, from that point of view, the Venezuelan
example is the most interesting one. I! t says: in order to change
the world you have to take power, and you have to begin to implement
changein small doses if necessarybut you have to do it.
Without it nothing will change. So, its an interesting situation
and I think at Porto Alegre next year all these things will be debated
and discussedI hope.
Without adequately
addressing state power, what alternative to neoliberalism is the Global
Social Justice movement offering?
No, they have no
alternative! They think that it is an advantage not to have an alternative.
But, in my view thats a sign of political bankruptcy. If you have
no alternative, what do you say to the people you mobilize? The MST[1]
in Brazil has an alternative, they say take the land and give
it to the poor peasants, let them work it. But the Holloway[2]
thesis of the Zapatistas, itsif you likea virtual
thesis, its a thesis for cyber space: lets imagine. But
we live in the real world, and in the real world this thesis isnt
going to work. Therefore, the model for me of the MST in Brazil is much
much more interesting than the model of the Zapatistas in Chiapas. Much
more interesting.
Brazil's Landless
Rural Workers Movement (MST) has been pressuring the Workers Party (PT)
to deliver on its promises of delivering land to Brazil's poor. What
do you make of the impasse that has been reached between the grassroots
and the government in Brazil?
I think the problem
in Brazil is the following: the PT[3] captured the aspirations of the
people, especially the poor. They captured them, but they couldnt
deliver anythingso far, they have delivered nothing. In fact,
the repression against the MST in the first year of Lula has been much
higher than in any single year of the Cardoso government. The farmers
and the police have victimized and killed far more MST militants. Now,
this will end badly. Why has it happened? Its happened because,
in my opinion, the PT had not prepared itself in a serious way to even
think about any real alternatives. Publicly they said, yes well
give land to the landless, yes will do this, yes we will do that,
but they had not made any real preparation. And Lula, Im afraid,
is a weak leader. A weak leader who is so excited at being in power,
that he forgets why he is. The same thing happened to Lech Walesa in
Poland when the big mass movement Solidarnosc threw him up and he finally
was electe! d. What did he deliver? Nothing. And he was voted out by
the people, and that will happen to Lula.
Refounding the Brazilian
left...
I think that, in
my opinion, what we need in Brazil is a movement to refound the Brazilian
left. And this movement must include, broadly speaking, those people
inside the PT including many members of parliament and senators and
grassroots members, a very key component that should include the MST
and it should include that layer of Brazilian socialist intellectuals
who are now very disillusioned. These three components are very important
to refound the Brazilian left, its foolish to do it by just a
few people walking out and declaring were a new party.
You need a new different sort of a movement and a different sort of
a party than the PT. In these conditions the bulk of the Brazilian working
class is now an informal working classits not the case as
it was when the PT was founded. And so you have different priorities.
You have to refound a Brazilian left which is in accord with these new
priorities and realities of Brazil today, not some mythological picture
of the past.
Before the elections
in Brazil, I was in Ribeirao Preto at a festival, and they asked me
if you were a Brazilian, who would you vote for? And I said
I would vote for Lula with the majority of the poor of Brazil. But I
said my big worry was that Lula will forget who has voted him into power
and he will cater to the policies of those who did not vote for himthe
IMF and the World Bank and the international financial institutions.
They did not vote for Lula, but theyre the people whos policies
are being carried out. And I said that would be a tragedy, and people
gasped but thats exactly whats happened. And for me the
relation between Lula and Cardoso is the relation between Thatcher and
Blair. Blair followed Thatcher, Lula is following Cardoso. Its
intertwined, and this is the tragedy of Brazil and in four or five years
time there will massive disillusionment; the right will probably win
again and we will have to start the fight from the beginning.
In Colombia,
for example, there has been a huge militarization that is very similar
to cold war U.S strategy in Latin America. Where does this fit in with
a new strategy that, as you have pointed out, is largely economic?
Colombia is exceptional
at the moment, and of course Venezuela where they tried to push through
a new coup détat which failed.
They will do that
if nothing else succeeds. Where they feel democracy doesnt serve
their interests they will return to the militarythats obvious.
But at the moment the problem is: how to devise a society in which you
can push through projects, social-democratic projects for the poor.
Thats the key in my opinion, thats why Venezuela is very
important. Before Lula was elected a possibility emerged, an image emerged
of the following: Argentina had collapsed, in Venezuela there was Chávez
that if you had a Bolivarian federation, of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador,
Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba, together you could produce a completely
different way of looking at the world and a different form of society,
which would not be repressive, which would not be vicious, which would
transform the everyday lives of the poor.
That has not happened
because
Kirchner, in my opinion, is better than Lula; hes
trying to resist on some levels. The big disappointment has been the
Brazilian PT, big disappointment. But that doesnt mean we stop
thinking like that because in a small way its what I said at the
press conference today: 10,000 Cuban doctors, thousands of poor Venezuelan
kids going to Cuba to learn to be doctors. Here you take advantage of
each others strengths, not each others weaknesses. So its
very good that Venezuela and Chávez are taking advantage of the
strengths of Cuba, rather than their weaknesses. The social structure
they have created, health, education thats something that Brazil
could do as well, but they dont do it.
In the wake of
strong opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas might the US
use bilateral trade agreements to achieve its economic goals in Latin
America?
I think the United
States, you have to understand, always acts in its own interests, and
its own interests are to stop a regional force from emerging in Latin
America without the presence of the United States; to stop a regional
force emerging in the far eastChina, Japan, Korea, without the
presence of the United States; to stop Europe from becoming a strong
political economic power. So, the United States will permit concessions
where it suits their interests, as long as they feel that this doesnt
threaten them politically or economically. They can make many concessions,
but by and large they prefer bilateral deals. Deal with us. Dont
deal with us as a collective, deal with us one-to-one. Thats what
suits us. Thats always been their policy.
The Global Justice
Movement is wary of Chávez populism, his military background,
and what they fear may become a top-down revolution that
excludes the grassroots. How do you think the GJM and Chávez
can be reconciled?
As long as the poor
in Venezuela support this government it will survive, when they withdraw
their support it will fall. But I think it will be useful if the Global
Justice movementand there are many different strands in itcame
and saw whats going on here. Whats the problem? Go into
the shantytowns, see what the lives of the people are, see what their
lives were before this regime came into power. And dont go on
the basis of stereotypes. You cannot change the world without taking
power, that is the example of Venezuela. Chávez is improving
the lives of ordinary people, and thats why its difficult
to topple himotherwise he would be toppled. So its something
that people in the Global Justice movement have to understand, this
is serious politics. Its pointless just chanting slogans, because
for the ordinary people on whose behalf you claim to be fighting getting
an education, free medicine, cheap food is much much more important
than all the slogans put together.
What do you think
of the Venezuelan example of participatory democracy?
I think it needs
to be strengthened. I think its weak, I think the movement here
needs to institutionalize on every levelthe level of small pueblos,
the level of the towns, the level of different quartersorganizations,
which can be very broad: Bolivarian Circles, whatever you want to call
them, which meet regularly, which talk with each other, which discuss
their problems, which arent simply a response to calls from above.
Its very very important, because you know, Chávez is an
unusual guy in Latin Americavery specialand he is young
and long may he live, but he has to create institutions which outlast
him for the future of this country.
What is at stake
in Venezuela? Whose interests? And can Venezuela survive alone? What
does Venezuela mean to the US?
Venezuela is an
example which the Americans wish to wipe out. Because if this example
exists, and gets stronger and stronger and stronger, then people in
Brazil, in Argentina, in Ecuador, in Chile, in Bolivia will say if
Venezuelans can do it, we can do it. So Venezuela, from that point
of view, is a very important example.
Thats why
theyre so worked up. Thats why the Americans pour in millions
of dollars to help this stupid opposition in this counry; an opposition
which is incapable of offering any real alternative to the people, except
what used to exist before: a corrupt, a servile oligarchy. Thats
what Venezuela means, and I think that one weakness, till recently,
of the Bolivarian revolution has been that it has not done more towards
the rest of Latin America, because its been under siege at home.
But I think, once Chávez wins the referendum, and then the local
elections I hope, and the mayoralty of Caracas in September, I hope
then a big offensive is made for th! e rest of Latin America too. From
that point of view, the model of the Cuban doctors is a very good one.
I mean, a Venezuelan doctorin five years Venezuelans will come
back [from Cuba] as doctors, they can help both their own country, and
they can go to other countries to work in the shantytowns. They are
small things, but in the world in which we live they are very big things.
Fifty years ago they would have been small, today they are very big.
And thats why we have to preserve and nurture them.
The mainstream
private media plays an important political role in Venezuela. How can
this disinformation be combated?
What we lack in
Latin America is means of communication, we need a satellite channel
like Al Jazeera, and I said well call it Al Bolivar
if you want. But you need one which reports regularlywhat the
right is saying, what the left movements are saying, which gives an
account of what it is the MST wants, which challenges Lula, but which
does it quite independently, without being attached to any state. And
I think this satellite channel could be very important for the whole
of Latin America, to challenge the BBC World, and CNN and have a Latin
American channel. And the Venezuelans, and the Argentineans, etc. its
in their own interests to do it.
What do you think
opposition and US strategy will be in the event of a Chávez victory
come A-15?
Well, I think the
only strategy left then is to try and overthrow him by a military coup.
So the fact that the military seems to be supporting him, and after
the previous coup it was a warning to him as well: you cant simply
rely on the military without educating people. I think without the military
in Venezuela, they cant do anythingthey cannot topple him.
I think the opposition, quite honestly, if they lose this referendumwhich
was their big demand for years, oh, hes not allowing a referendum,
forgetting that he has given you a constitution according which you
want this referendum, without this constitution you couldnt have
had this referendumso if he wins this referendum the opposition
will be fractured, I think they will be completely demoralized, its
foolish.
Do you think
opposition strategy might be to claim there was fraud in order to deligitmize
Chavez´victory?
Well, look: we have
to fight that when it happens, but I think this is why the process should
be transparent, and I think lots of observers will be coming. And if
that happens, the government has to go immediately on the offensive,
and say this was a clear victory, you want you go into the whole
country and talk to every single voter. One hasnt got to
be defensive about that. Go completely on the offensive and say, this
isnt Florida.
In any case, one
shouldnt worry permanently, be paranoid, you know one should depend
on the strength of the people. If the people vote him in, and he wins
the referendum they will be big celebrations all over the country. And
it will be obvious, what has happened.
[1] Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem TeraLandless Rural
Workers Movement, Brazil.
[2] John Holloway, Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning
of Revolution Today, Pluto Press: 2002.
[3] Partido dos TrabalhadoresWorkers Party, Brazil.
Tariq Ali is
a veteran political activist, filmmaker, and author of numerous books,
both fiction and non-fiction. He was born in Lahore, Pakistan, and now
lives and works London, England where he is an editor of the British
journal New Left Review. His most recent political texts include The
Clash of Fundamentalisms (Verso, 2002) and Bush in Babylon: Recolonizing
Iraq (Verso, 2003). Claudia Jardim and Jonah Gindin talked with him
during a recent trip of his to Caracas, where he participated in the
presentation of a statement of solidarity from numerous Brazilian intellectuals.
This interview originally appeared in Venezuelanalysis.com