Characteristics of the experiences underway in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia
June 27, 2008 -- In Latin America, if we exclude Cuba, we can point to three general categories of governments. First, the governments of the right, the allies of Washington, that play an active role in the region and occupy a strategic position: these are the governments of Álvaro Uribe in Colombia, Alan García in Peru and Felipe Calderón in México.
Second, we find supposed “left” governments that implement a neoliberal policy and support the national or regional bourgeoisies in their projects: Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Nicaragua and the government of Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, from Argentina’s Peronists. They are governments that implement a neoliberal policy that favour grand capital, covered up with some social assistance measures. In effect, they make it a bit easier to swallow the neoliberal pill by applying social programs. For example, in Brazil poor families receive a bit of help from the government, which assures them popular support in the poorest region of the country.
Some of these governments are attempting to improve their relations with Washington, especially with the establishment of free trade agreements with the United States. Chile signed one and Lula, in Brazil, is also seeking an agreement with Washington around a series of political issues. But at the same time great differences of opinion persist between the government of Lula and the United States. These differences include defence of the interests of the Brazilian bourgeoisie in agriculture and a series of industrial sectors, especially those that export, who do not accept the protectionism of the United States.
In the third category of countries we find Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, which are confronted by the active opposition of important sectors of the local capitalist class and Washington. Cuba is, by itself, a fourth category.
The importance of popular
mobilisations ...
Regarding
the countries that make up the third category -- Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador
-- we have to point out that we can only understand the politics of these
countries if we take into consideration the powerful popular mobilisations that
have marked recent history.
In
Ecuador, four right-wing presidents were sent home between 1997 and 2005 thanks
to the mass mobilisations of the population.
In
Bolivia, important struggles emerged against the privatisation of water in
April 2000 and towards the end of 2004. The mobilisations around the issue of
gas, in October 2003, overthrew and forced then president Gonzalo Sánchez de
Lozada to flee (to the United States).
Venezuela,
since 1989, has seen important mobilisations that inaugurated the mass social
struggles against the International Monetary Fund that spread across the globe
through the 1990s. Even more spectacular were the enormous popular
mobilisations of April 12, 2002, spontaneous manifestations against the coup attempt
to overthrow Hugo Chávez. These mobilisations directly achieved the return of
Hugo Chávez to the presidential palace of Miraflores on April 13, 2002. These
mass popular mobilisations are a decisive factor in the existence and survival
of the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.
... and the democratic adoption of
new constitutions
The
second important point is the revision of the constitution. In Venezuela in
1999, during Hugo Chávez's first term, a new democratic constitution (drafted
up by a constituent assembly) was adopted by referendum. This constitution,
which continues to be in force, has guaranteed more cultural, economic and
social rights to the majority of the Venezuelan population. Furthermore, the
actual constitution established a democratic mechanism that allows the recall
of all those in elected posts at all levels (including the president of the
republic) halfway through their term.
The
adoption of a new constitution in Venezuela, subsequently inspired the
governments of Bolivia and Ecuador. Bolivia adopted a new constitution in 2007,
and in Ecuador, the Constituent Assembly elected in September 2007, is drafting
a new constitution which will be submitted to a referendum in September 2008.
These
are effectively profound reforms! These democratic political changes being
implemented in these three countries have not only been systematically been
silenced in the mass media of the most industrialised countries and in others,
but furthermore the media has orchestrated a constant campaign of attacks with
the aim of presenting the heads of states of the three countries as repulsive
populist and authoritarian leaders.
The
experiences of these three Andean countries, regarding the adoption of new
constitutions, are very rich. They should be an inspiration for the peoples and
political forces of other countries. We only have to compare the situation of
Europe, with the absence of any democratic procedure for the approval of the
constitutional treaty.
Contradictions
Of
course, the experiences underway in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador also have
contradictions and important limitations that should be analysed. In Ecuador,
the reform process underway is mobilising broad social sectors. The current
president, Rafael Correa, was elected at the end of 2006, by a large majority,
without having a political party or parliamentarians behind him. Despite the
strong opposition from the right and all the mass media – in Ecuador there is
no public state television or radio station – Correa won the referendum to
convoke a Constituent Assembly with 82% of the vote. This political movement,
which Correa had constructed along the way through 2007, achieved more than 70%
of the vote in the elections for the Constituent Assembly. If we add on top of
this his allies, he has the advantage of a majority of more than 80%.
At
the moment in Ecuador, the social movements are permanently invited to the
Constituent Assembly, with the aim of better taking into consideration their
proposals. In this way, the new constitution can be elaborated by a broad
majority of the population. Therefore it is a very open and very interesting
process. We will know the definitive results by the end of July, when the
Constituent Assembly has adopted the project of the new constitution in order
to afterwards submit it to a referendum at the end of September. It is probable
that the text that will be presented to voters could be criticised over diverse
aspects (the absence of right to abortion or the absence of prohibition on genetically
modified organisms, for example).
In
Bolivia, the process of revision is being carried out in the midst of a much
more conflict. The party of President Evo Morales, the Movement Towards
Socialism (MAS), clearly won a simple majority in the Constituent Assembly
(55%), but did not have an absolute majority of two-thirds. This complicates
the situation. Finally, the new constitution was adopted in December 2007
despite the obstructions, sometimes violent, placed by the right and the
dominant classes. As a consequence, the situation is extremely polarised, given
the very aggressive mobilisation by reactionary sectors. The right moved into
action with a racist campaign and the threat of a territorial separation of the
eastern part of the country, where they control the situation. This reactionary
revolt has been able to halt, until now, the holding of the referendum over the
new constitution.
The return to public control of
natural resources
A
third important point: the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have
taken measures to strengthen the public sector and gain control of their natural
resources. In Venezuela, the state took control of the large oil company, PDVSA,
that although publicly owned favoured private interests and declared the
majority of its profits in the United States. It was a very hard battle. The
capitalist class organised a coup in April 2002, followed by a shutdown that
paralysed the company in December 2002 and January 2003. Venezuela’s gross
domestic product sunk in the first months of 2003, but the government finally regained
control of the situation with the support of the majority of the people.
Last
year, the Venezuelan state also took control of an important oilfield, the Faja
de Orinoco. In Venezuela, the state produces two-thirds of petroleum, and a
third is by the large petroleum companies. However, currently the petroleum is
exploited in the framework of the new negotiated contracts in which the state
collects more rent than previously.
We
have to add other nationalisations: the production and distribution of
electricity, telecommunications (CANTV), a steel factory (SIDOR, which has 15,000
workers), the cement sector and some companies involved in food production. Not
to forget the agrarian reform, aimed at handing land to those who work it.
Bolivia
nationalised oil and the production of gas in 2006. Evo Morales sent the army
to take control of the oilfields, but the multinationals continue to be active
there, given it is they which extract the oil and gas. Clearly, the state is
the property owner of natural wealth, but it is the large multinationals that
exploit the petroleum and gas.
Strategic agreements
Here
is the strategic importance of the agreements between Venezuela and Bolivia,
which would allow Bolivia to strengthen a public petroleum company to extract
and refine oil and gas. Bolivia does not have a refinery; the ones that Ecuador
have are not sufficient. Bolivia and Ecuador export petroleum and import fuel
and other refined products. Here as well, we can see the importance of the
strategic agreements between Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia to strengthen the
autonomy of the latter two.
What
Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have in common with the second category of
countries (Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina) is a determined policy of social assistance
programs. It is not about purely and simply rejecting these measures, but it is
totally necessary to promote the creation of jobs, sharply increase wages and
guarantee more social and economic rights for workers, peasants, artisans,
petty traders, pensioners and other social sectors. Venezuela and Bolivia have
advanced in this direction but there is still much to be done.
Ecuador: Will Correa suspend the
payment of part of the debt?
Ecuador
launched an important initiative regarding its public debt. Rafael Correa
created, in July 2007, the Integral Auditing Commission of the internal and
external public debt (CAIC). It is a commission of 12 members from the social movements
and NGOs in Ecuador, six members from international campaigns for the cancellation
of the Third World debt (I am part of the commission as the representative of
Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt, CADTM) and four representatives
of the state (the ministry of finance, the Accounts Tribunal, the anti-corruption
commission and the general treasury). What is interesting is that there is no
talk about representatives of civil society (which includes bosses’
associations, for example), but rather delegates from social movements such as
the Indigenous movement (CONAIE, Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of
Ecuador) and other radical social movements in Ecuador. Correa’s idea, and that
of a sectors of his government, is to avoid repayment of a large part of the
public debt.
If
Correa achieves his goal, it would signify a direct confrontation with his own
national bourgeoisie, because it is the Ecuadorian bourgeoisie which gains the
most from the repayment of the bulk of the public debt. It would also signify a
confrontation with international financial markets and with the World Bank. The
rightwing of the government and the large financial groups, not to say the
World Bank and the governments of most industrialised countries, are exercising
strong pressure in order to convince Correa to do nothing. He should make a
decision by the middle of July 2008, when the CAIC hands over its report. There
is nothing certain about it, and there is the possibility that Correa could
decide to avoid this confrontation.
The strategy of the United States
and the local capitalists: confrontation and separation
The
strategy of the United States and the local capitalist class is clearly
orientated towards confrontation: the coup against Chavez in 2002, the Venezuelan
bosses’ lockout in December 2002 and January 2003, and the campaigns by the
mass media in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela against the government.
But
the fundamental issue is a new strategy of dividing up country. The capitalist
class of Bolivia is organising the eastern part of the country to split off.
What the mass media calls la media
luna (the half moon), with Santa Cruz as the prinicpal economic centre. The
large landowners and the owners of exportcompanies (particularly of transgenic
soya) are inciting the population to declare independence in defiance of the
national state. They habitually resort to racist actions. We have to affirm,
without ambiguities, that the population of this rich region does not
constitute a nation that would have the right to national self-determination.
The government responded to the right by saying it is willing to concede more
autonomy to the regions but not separation, and in this case they have reason
on their side.
In
Ecuador, the economic centre is found in Guayaquil, on the Pacific coast, while
Quito – which is also important in economic terms – is the political capital,
situated 2800 metres above sea level in the Andean ranges. The capitalist class
of Guayaquil wants to declare its independence under the leadership of its
rightist mayor.
In
Venezuela, the governor of the western state of Zulia (which borders Colombia) has
been brandishing the threat of separation. All of this constitutes, without a
doubt, a premeditated continental strategy of Washington that aims to support
the local bourgeoisies in a process of breaking up countries that are passing
through left experiences.
Reminiscent of Katanga
It
is reminiscent of the policy of Belgium, the United States and other powers
with respect to the province of Katanga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Let us recall that the Western capitals supported the separatism of Katanga
against the Congo’s Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. When the pro-West dictator Mobuto
took power (after the assassination of Lumumba, who was taken by force to
Katanga and handed over to his worst enemies), the great powers stopped
supporting the separatists.
I
think it is an important issue because some on the left consider these
divisions of countries as an irrefutable expression of the right of peoples to
self-determination.
In
the Bolivian case, it is clearly the reaction of the local capitalist class
against the rights of the Indigenous majority of the nation. As if it wasn’t
enough, they utilise racist and reactionary language. The mayor of Santa Cruz,
Percy Fernández, commenting on the adoption of the project of the new
constitution by the Constituent Assembly, declared on December 9, 2007, that:
``In this country, soon it will be necessary to pain oneself and wear feathers
in order to exist!’’ Since then, his supporters have organised attacks against
the Indigenous people who, we should recall, constitute the majority of the
population of the country and who for centuries have been victims of domination
at the hands of Europe and its descendents.
Multinationals attack
The
strategy of Washington and certain European capitals includes moreover another
aspect. The conflict between the multinational ExxonMobil and Venezuela’s state
oil company PDVSA, the disagreement between Occidental Petroleum of the United
States and PetroEcuador, a public company in Ecuador, the disagreement between
Telecom Italia and Bolivia, etc. The large multinationals (without forgetting
Petrobras from Brazil) oppose the decisions of the three leftwing governments
to restore public control over natural resources. These multinationals have utilised
the tribunal of the World Bank (CIADI) to resolve disagreements concerning
investments. They have also resorted to tribunals dealing with trade issues, in
London, Amsterdam or New York.
There
exists the risk that in the next few months a conflict could explode over a
contract between two Latin American countries: the president-elect of Paraguay,
Fernando Lugo, who will be inaugurated in August 2008, declared that he would
revise the one-sided contract imposed by Brazil on this country when both lived
under military dictatorships (the contract over Itaipú, which dates back to
1973). Effectively, while the price of energy is sharply rising, Brazil pays a
ridiculously low price for electricity produced in Paraguay. Paraguay and
Brazil have completely different economic weights and Paraguay has good reason
to demand the revision of the contract or its termination.
These
types of conflict situations demonstrate the necessity for Latin American
countries to pull out of CIADI, as Bolivia did, and create a Latin American
organisation for resolving litigation between states and multinationals (from
the North or South), or between Latin American states. Of course, in this last
scenario, it is necessary to first seek a bilateral agreement before resorting
to a multilateral solution.
Trade agreements between peoples
In
opposition to the free trade agreements that some Latin American countries have
signed with the United States and the European Union, it is worth highlighting
the new agreements that have been signed between the governments of Venezuela,
Bolivia and Cuba.
We
have to cite, for example, the 20,000 Cuban doctors who voluntarily work in
Venezuela to provide free health care, predominately in the poor barrios, and
the 40,000 operations for cataracts and other eye problems which Venezuelan
citizens benefit from for free in Cuban hospitals. In exchange, principally in
the form of barter, Venezuela provides oil to Cuba. The same types of
agreements exist between Venezuela and Bolivia.
In
conclusion, the experiences underway in these countries are very different to
the caricatures and negative images that the majority of the mass media
presents. The processes underway are complex and sometimes contradictory;
retreats are possible, even probable. Perhaps the governments will not be able
to go sufficiently far enough in their political and social transformations in
favour of the people.
The
destabilisation orchestrated by the local dominant classes and Washington could
slow the processes. With Colombia’s aggression against Ecuador in March 2008,
it is clear that Bogotá and Washington are willing to utilise the guns of war against
the regimes in Quito and Caracas.
One
aspect to highlight, which we have not been able to analyse in this article, is
the weakness of the producers’ control over the entire production process (what
is traditionally called in the workers’ movements, workers’ control and
self-management).
[Eric
Toussaint is from the Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt.
Translated from the Spanish version by
Federic Fuentes for Links International
Journal of Socialist Renewal. The original is available at the CADTM
website, http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?rubrique2.]