Chavez Chavez Chavez... Analytical Comments from a Brooklyn Activist

Chavismo is alive and kicking
Commentators have painted Venezuela's elections as a bitter blow for Hugo Chávez. But they have their facts wrong


o Max Ajl
o guardian.co.uk, Thursday November 27 2008 22.00 GMT


Richard Gott – usually an informed, sober analyst of Bolívarian Venezuela – observed on Comment is free this week that the results of the recent electoral round constituted an "electoral reverse" (or a "major electoral setback," or a "huge blow"; take your pick).

Gott is no neophyte analyst. He's also not lazy – rather than reiterating some party line, he clearly watched the results come in live, noting that "The president of the National Electoral Council, close to tears, had announced earlier that the Chavez government had lost the city of Caracas."

Indeed, one imagines his dissections of contemporary Venezuela carry considerable heft within the liberal or left-wing commentariat. So, to put it as nicely as I can, it is too bad that he's wrong.

The numbers are clear. With 65% turnout, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela's (PSUV) officials hold 17 of the country's 23 states, while the opposition holds five (sparsely populated Amazonas is on its own cycle). Meanwhile, some 80% of the mayoralties remain under Bolívarian control, while total numbers indicate that the PSUV candidates attracted 53.5% of the vote: 5.42 million Venezuelans. The main opposition parties garnered 39.9% of the votes: 4.04 million people. Dissident Chavista parties got 4.1% – 411,000 – while other opposition parties got 2.5% – 255,000.

At a glance, then, Gott's study seems suspect. But recall: the Chavista coalition is, ostensibly, carrying out a hegemonic project of national transformation. Social spending has radically increased, while poverty reduction has been precipitous, according to the freshest, most authoritative investigation (courtesy of the Center for Economic and Policy Research). So simple electoral tallies in response to the rhetorical question, "Who won?" won't do.

Keeping to the numbers, then, let us look at some other evidence. We should look to the results of previous elections, as all commentators view such statistics as a significant barometer of opinion. The 2007 referendum was on a package of constitutional reforms promoted by Chavez. Divided into A and B blocks, the referendum was rejected by a margin of between 1.5 and 2%, on a 56% turnout. Assessing electoral results on a purely numerical basis suggests that the Chavista movement has made gains with respect to the last vote, the most relevant unit of comparison. In that race, the No vote reached 4.5m. A year later, that number has dwindled to 4.2m.

In Venezuela, radicals have assessed the situation in similar terms. For example, as Venezuelan sociologist Javier Biardeau, surely situated further left than many PSUVistas, comments, "the Venezuelan revolution has recovered significantly from the electoral setback of December 2, 2007 (the day of the failed referendum). As he continues, the elections could have amplified that setback, or they could have "directed the electoral trajectory toward the recovery of the level of support reached in the 2006 electoral cycle", which is what happened.

Nor should one grasp at the facile explanation that the Chavistas are in denial or are delusional, smiling as they swallow down mouthfuls of ash. Particularly galling to them was the loss of the mayoralty that includes the massive slum Petare, on the eastern edge of Caracas, due to inadequate sanitation, violence, thuggery – and, some allege, the penetration of Colombian drug traffickers.

As Venezuelan journalist José Roberto Duque observes, "I know that anti-Chavismo won in Caracas," although he meticulously adduces evidence showing that in the most destitute areas of Petare, the Chavista candidate won by a 2-to-1 margin.

Moreover, there is widespread chagrin that the western electoral corridor is in opposition hands, including what community organiser and left-wing intellectual Roland Denis calls the "strategic" Táchira and Zulia provinces, bordering a potentially hostile Colombia. Additionally, the loss of Metropolitan Caracas, Miranda and Carabobo represents the loss of "states and regions that are among the country's most important with respect to population and electoral, industrial, and economic" clout.

However, all analysts suggest that the electoral results are, more than anything else, symbolic. Underlying them are the real stuff of politico-social mobilisation and the possibility of social transformation. As Duque continues, the key is "understanding that the PSUV is not the revolution". For example, the winner of the governor's office in Falcon state is hardly a hard-left figure. But from a pragmatic perspective, better the PSUV than the opposition.

In that sense, then, electoral victory is not the summa summarum of the political process. It is merely appreciably better than electoral defeat. As widely respected analyst James Petras concludes, the fact is that "Chavismo has consolidated its support and is in a position to advance the process of transformation."

And, one should add, Chavez has accepted the PSUV losses with equanimity, not ire. We may think what we will of the ongoing political change in Venezuela. But accusations of autocracy now seem like mere calumny.