Since Chávez’ Bolivarian Constitution allows for such a referendum against any elected official at mid-point in their term of office, theoretically it was possible to throw him out by popular vote. To do this it was necessary to first collect the signatures of 20% of the electorate (roughly 2.4 million under the old electoral register), and then in the actual referendum to get more votes for a recall than Chávez had received when elected (some 3.7 million), and also more than the number of pro-Chávez votes in the referendum.

After months of procedural wrangling and arguments over fraudulent signatures, in June the National Electoral Council (CNE, Consejo Nacional Electoral, an independent body) announced that the opposition ‘Coordinadora Democratica’ had obtained slightly more than the necessary 2.4 million signatures, and set 15 August as the referendum date. Many commentators, deceived by opposition propaganda, saw this as a body-blow to Chávez” “Bolivarian Revolution” as they took at face value the highly unreliable opinion polls conducted by the ferociously anti-Chávez Venezuelan private media. As polling day approached, however, independent assessments gave Chávez a growing lead of anywhere from 5 to 20%.

Democratic triumph

Once again crying fraud long before the actual vote, the opposition demanded changes in the voting procedure and for verification by the U.S. based NGO Carter Centre for Human Rights, the OAS (Organisation of American States) and other international observers – all of which they got. In the event the procedure was one of the most rigorous in the world, with new computer software supplemented by paper print-outs, and an updated and greatly expanded electoral register. For the last 20 years Venezuelan elections have been characterised by massive abstention rates of 35 to 50%, but on 15 August long queues of voters began to gather from the early hours, many standing in the hot sun all day to cast their ballots.

What resulted was the biggest voter turn-out in the country’s history, an unprecedented show of civic enthusiasm – and unlike previous elections, violent incidents were few and far between. The polling hours were extended to midnight to accommodate people waiting to vote, and when at about 3 am on Monday 16 August the CNE announced provisional results (on the basis of a 94% count, about 8.5 million votes it became clear that Chávez and the revolution had scored another great victory, the eighth in six years: the “No” (to recall) had 58.25%, against 41.3% “Yes” (for recall). Later figures, that were still incomplete, showed an even more decisive chavista victory: nearly 60% “No” to only a little over 40% “Yes”.

Opposition sour grapes

Predictably, the opposition (well described by Chávez as the ‘Undemocratic Discoordinator’) reacted by crying fraud and persisting in this position despite the certification of the results by all the international observers. Indeed, when in response to further opposition demands the CNE, the Carter Centre and the OAS agreed to a supervised audit of 150 polling station counts selected at random, the opposition refused to attend the audit. This show of sour grapes became so ridiculous that it soon led the international media – in a dramatic change from their previously anti-Chávez position – to condemn the opposition. Indeed, establishment papers like the “New York Times”, “El País” of Spain and Canada’s “Toronto Star” commented that the opposition’s attitude was dangerously anti-democratic, and that they should recognise that they do not represent the majority of Venezuelans and accept their minority status.

Ideological advances

With this eighth electoral triumph, the way is clear for Chávez’ so-called “Bolivarian Revolution” to enter into a new phase. On August 21, William Izarra, Director of Ideological Development for Chávez’ Fifth Republic Movement, declared that ‘It will be necessary to revise the structure of the revolutionary process in order to consolidate it’. The ratification of the process by almost 60% of the electorate ‘will make it possible to deepen the political changes and overcome the structural obstacles which have held up the progress of this revolution’. Izarra went on to say that the “Missions” – the social programmes such as the literacy campaigns, the neighbourhood health clinics, etc – would be broadened and opened to all Venezuelans, not just the poor. There would also be a ‘deepening of the theoretical aspect’ with the participation of the entire people in Centres of Ideological Preparation.

Chávez, while showing an openness to dialogue with the opposition and a desire for reconciliation, has also been insisting on the advance of the revolutionary process. Talking to the foreign press on 18 August he proclaimed that ‘With the referendum the birth of the Fifth Republic is complete’ and that the period of transition was over. He also said that it was necessary to carry out ‘the integral transformation of State institutions, including the Justice system’ in order to end corruption and class bias.

Then on 20 August in a message to the nation, he insisted on the importance of the 49 ‘Facilitating Laws’ passed by decree in November 2001 (but still only partially implemented) which laid the basis for the agrarian reform, the new petroleum law and other fundamental changes. These laws, he said, had begun to put the fine words of the new Constitution into practice. He put special emphasis on the results of the Hydrocarbon (oil and gas) Law, which meant that for the first time the oil revenues were being invested in the country’s overall development, and on the Electrical Industry Law which stopped the privatisation of that sector. He also stressed the recovery of control over Venezuelan territorial waters, including the modernisation of the country’s naval bases.

Bold nationalist moves

Those on the left who criticise Chávez for not nationalising key industries should consider that in today’s neoliberal context, the mere halting of privatisation of two of the country’s major resources is a bold move and everything suggests that the Bolivarian government is preparing itself to defend national sovereignty on all fronts. Although international recognition of the referendum victory was almost universal, in the case of the U.S., the State Department hedged its recognition with concerns about the accuracy of the vote, echoing (although less hysterically) opposition cries of fraud – which suggests that it may discreetly favour the violent and destabilising tactics of extreme opposition sectors.

Chávez has adopted the intelligent approach of trying to separate the opposition’s extremist leaders from the opposition’s popular base, insisting that the majority of their voters do not identify with these leaders who have deceived them. But this will not prevent certain groups, with clandestine U.S. support, from attempting destabilisation. State and local elections are due on 27 September, and are likely to result in the opposition losing most of the 9 state governors it still has. The context is favourable to further advances of the revolutionary process, but constant vigilance and international solidarity will be more important than ever.

But go to alternative websites like Znet, Venezuelanalysis.com or Rebelión, and you’ll find reports on literacy campaigns, health clinics in poor neighbourhoods staffed by Cuban doctors, community-based housing programmes and agrarian reform. Venezuela is undergoing a social transformation the likes of which have not been seen in Latin America since the early years of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua.

Agrarian cooperatives

In the past fifteen months the government has begun to redistribute uncultivated land from private estates or public lands to poor peasants and landless labourers. In a repeat of the agrarian reform programmes carried out decades ago in several Latin American countries, some 2.2 million hectares (5.5 million acres) has already been distributed to 116,000 families organised in cooperatives.

A peasant woman receives a land title

This alone would be remarkable in today’s globalised world, where the very idea of cooperative or collective agriculture has been dismissed as outdated and inefficient, and countries like Mexico have dismantled long-established rural cooperatives and opened their agricultural sectors to the unfettered play of the free market and the consequent domination of private agribusiness.

But the Venezuelan agrarian reform goes beyond satisfying peasant land hunger and alleviating poverty. It is based as far as possible on organic practices and is intended as the foundation stone of an entirely new social and economic model, oriented towards self-sufficiency, sustainability and “endogenous development”.

Fighting bureaucracy

Chaguaramal is a newly-cultivated strip of land surrounded by tropical forest and isolated poverty-stricken communities, a few kilometres inland from the Caribbean. Here 144 families have so far benefited from the creation of a SARAO or Self-Organised Rural Association. The Ministry of Planning and Development first provided land, funds and equipment, and people from nearby villages began to organise the new community on a cooperative basis.

Working at Chaguaramal

But at first the Ministry delegated implementation of the project to a bureaucratic public corporation, CORPOCENTRO, which imposed technical decisions without consultation. Only in August 2003, when the INTI (National Land Institute) took over responsibility for projects of this type, did Chaguaramal take on the characteristics of community self-organisation as originally intended. “We listen to the communities, we open our doors to them so that they can bring to life their own projects and dreams”, says Silvia Vidal, the INTI official now responsible for the SARAOS.

The new settlement (asentamiento) consists of attractive houses built by the residents themselves with materials and technical assistance provided by the state, with carefully cultivated gardens, a school, a health centre and a child care centre. A variety of crops are being produced as well as livestock and fish, and we were treated to a delicious fish barbecue. We saw how the community prepares its own compost and is already recycling most of its waste.

New housing at Chaguaramal

“I’m a member of the SARAO, I joined on 15 April 2002″, says Gelipsa Rojas. “My area of work is worm composting, which will give us organic fertiliser … so as not to use chemical fertilisers …

“At first [under CORPOCENTRO] they only paid attention to the men, we women stayed at home and only did housework. When the INTI arrived, things changed. There is still machismo but we are gradually getting rid of it. This worm-compost project is run only by women. Now the men help with the housework, we’re both responsible for it.”

Chaguaramal is in Miranda State, with a Governor ferociously opposed to Chávez and the revolutionary process, and so everything achieved in the new settlement has been done despite systematic obstruction by the State government. In a neighbouring hamlet called Buenos Aires which was not initially included in the project, opposition politicians turned people against the cooperative, saying that it would do nothing for them and would be run on principles of “Cuban slavery”. But now several families from Buenos Aires have been incorporated into the SARAO and everyone can see its benefits.

Developing the interior

Hundreds of kilometres away, over the coastal mountains and in the llanos, the sweltering tropical plains of the interior, we visited a major development project which reflects the Chávez government’s aim of moving people and resources away from the coastal cities. The “Ezequiel Zamora” Agro-Industrial Sugar Complex (CAAEZ) is centred on a state-of-the-art sugar mill now under construction with Cuban technicians and Brazilian equipment, a reflection of the desire for Latin American collaboration. The complex and its associated agricultural cooperatives will produce not only sugar but rice, yucca and other crops in order to promote agricultural self-sufficiency (Venezuela, chronically dependent on its oil exports, imports 70% of its food despite having abundant fertile land).

As long ago as 1975 this area was designated as ideal for sugar production – cane yields here are several times higher than in Cuba or Brazil – and a first-class irrigation system was built but then abandoned due to corruption under previous governments. Then in the 1990s a Costa Rican investor offered to go into partnership with local farmers, making loans for them to produce cane and promising to build a mill, only to abandon the project and take the funds, leaving them in the lurch -”I was one of those who sowed cane and waited nine years for the first harvest, and was unable to harvest the cane because of that gentleman,” declared Francisco, a member of one of the associated cooperatives, bitterly denouncing this example of capital flight.

But now the CAAEZ project is well advanced: a huge undertaking which will eventually employ 15,000 workers, it comprises the sugar mill and other industrial plants as well as the agricultural area. Here too organic methods will be favoured: among other things, sugar-cane bagasse (the dry refuse) will be composted and supplied to mixed-farming cooperatives. All of the new social programmes are also being implemented here, such as the literacy programme (the Robinson Mission) and the “Into the Neighbourhoods” Mission with its health clinics staffed by Cuban doctors.

The greening of Caracas

But the greening of Venezuela is not limited to the countryside. In the heart of Caracas, just behind the Hilton Hotel, an abandoned strip of land has been turned into an organopónico, an organic market garden for the intensive production of lettuces, tomatoes and an impressive variety of crops for the urban market. Unemployed people from nearby shanty-towns are given work here and trained as agricultural specialists.

Urban agricultural plots like this are springing up in cities across Venezuela and further contributing to the aim of self-sufficiency. When the project began it was ridiculed by the escuálido opposition, who said it was impossible to produce food here, or that it would be uneconomic. But now people from wealthy neighbourhoods themselves buy the produce when they can get it (which is not easy since demand is so high).

A new socio-economic model

Agrarian reform, cooperative enterprise, organic agriculture, use of local resources – these are all features of an entirely new socio-economic model for Venezuela. The model is summed up in a programme called the “Vuelvan Caras” Mission (a term derived from the battle-cry of a nineteenth-century rebel leader), which attempts to coordinate all the other programmes and “missions”: it provides government assistance in the form of technical advice and funds derived from oil income, for agricultural, industrial and commercial cooperatives, generating employment and training. It encourages local initiative, self-sufficiency, sustainability and “endogenous development”, development from within and from below, with popular participation. The leading role of women, blacks and indigenous people is also explicitly promoted.

This new model will take years to develop, but it is already under way and being promoted with great enthusiasm. It does not exclude possible nationalisation of some major industries, but it points in a direction which challenges both globalised capitalism and state socialism of the traditional variety. It is also the foundation of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA in its Spanish acronym), which Venezuela is proposing as a progressive alternative to the ALCA (the US-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas). This is why Washington hates Chávez: not because of his revolutionary rhetoric, not because of any threat to “democracy”, but because the Venezuelan process offers a real alternative to US plans for the hemisphere – and it is this which Venezuela, and the world, would stand to lose if Chávez were to be defeated in the recall referendum.

Washington’s dislike of Chávez became clear before his first election victory in December 1998, when the Clinton administration denied him a US visa. American hostility is not surprising given Chávez’ friendship with Cuba, his role in reviving OPEC and raising oil prices, his opposition to Plan Colombia and to the Free Trade Area of the Americas, his economic nationalism and radical social policies.

Venezuela has become the thorniest obstacle to Washington’s plans for military and commercial domination of Latin America. Now, after getting rid of Aristide in Haiti, is Chávez is next on the list?

Opposition leaders make no secret of their aims, and have threatened to create a situation “like in Haiti” on sympathetic private TV stations. Some even demonstrated in front of the US Embassy in Caracas in favour of intervention, with posters proclaiming “1. Hussein; 2. Aristide; 3. Chávez”.

Slanders have even been published in the US linking Chavez to Al-Qaida, only to be withdrawn after vigorous protests from Carcacas. Meanwhile, the real terrorists are receiving support in the US.

Two Venezuelan rebel military officers were accused of planting bombs at the Spanish Embassy and Colombian Consulate in Caracas last year in order to blame the terrorist destruction on the Chávez government. They are now in Florida requesting asylum, with vigorous backing from the “Miami Herald” and the Cuban exile lobby.

On March 4th the Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN, Milos Alcalay, resigned alleging human rights abuses by the authorities in Caracas during opposition demonstrations. Alcalay supported the 48-hour coup two years ago, but most Venezuelan consuls in the US declared their support for Chávez.

Chávez’s response has been uncompromising: “The government of Mr George W Bush has its hands in a plan of destabilisation against Venezuela, against the people, against Venezuelan institutions, against Venezuelan democracy”, he said in successive speeches during the crisis in Haiti. The US president “kidnaps presidents,” he said, adding that the US would “get a surprise” if it tried to do the same thing in Venezuela.

Evidence of Washington’s support for destabilisation in Venezuela abounds, but there is reason to suspect they may hold off for the time being. On 3 March Colin Powell surprised observers by declaring that “Hugo Chávez is the democratically elected President and the United States accepts this”. Washington, he said, would accept the verdict of the Venezuelan National Electoral Council on the referendum issue.

Inevitably, suspicion of ulterior motives in Washington was aroused, but the maneouvre may just be connected with Bush’s re-election campaign: the White House has enough foreign policy headaches in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti, and may realise that intervention in Venezuela would be extremely complex and costly.

This does not mean that the threat to Venezuelan democracy has disappeared. If Bush is re-elected, aggressive plans will undoubtedly be revived, and even a Kerry administration would be likely to pursue forms of destabilisation. Neighbouring Colombia under Washington’s faithful client President Uribe might be persuaded to act as proxy by infiltrating paramilitaries and saboteurs in Venezuelan border regions (incidents have already occurred, and Bogotá repeatedly accuses Chávez of supporting Colombian guerrillas despite the lack of any hard evidence of this).

What worries the US most is the possibility that the Chávez revolution may actually succeed. Its education, health, housing and agrarian policies are bringing tangible benefits to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, and recent reports in the financial press indicate that Venezuela may post the highest growth rate in Latin America this year. Whatever the reservations some leftists may have about Chávez, the need for solidarity with Venezuela in the face of US interventionism is as compelling as ever.

First anniversary of the coup

The extraordinary events of last April – Chávez’ overthrow by a military-civilian coup which installed business leader Pedro Carmona as a 48-hour Pinochet, dissolving parliament and suspending all representative and judicial institutions and starting a witch-hunt which killed over 50 people, followed by an overwhelming popular mobilisation and counter-coup by the progressive military – made it clear to many people that what’s at stake in Venezuela is a radical process of popular transformation unparalleled in Latin America since the Sandinista revolution. Chavismo means popular power at all levels, a participatory democracy in which common people are taking the initiative away from bosses, politicians and bureaucrats.

Brazil under Lula and the PT also represents a great hope for change in Latin America, and perhaps also Ecuador under Lucio Gutiérrez, a former army officer who is sometimes compared to Chávez. But only in Venezuela has a radical transformation of the country’s power structure really been initiated, with a new constitution, a shakeout of the armed forces, popular organisation in thousands of grass-roots committees known as Bolivarian Circles, and a reassertion of public control over the vital oil industry. The failure of the coup led to a purge of reactionary officers, and the failure of the opposition strike in December and January led to a purge of pro-multinational managers and technicians in PDVSA (the state oil company). The established oligarchy is losing power month by month, which is why the opposition is so desperate and continues to resort to unconstitutional means.

The defeat of the coup last year was an object lesson in popular power and political consciousness. People all over the country came onto the streets brandishing copies of the constitution and demanding the return of Chávez, and surrounded military bases urging the troops to restore the legitimate government. Several military units refused to accept the authority of the coup-mongers, and the “civil-military alliance” became a reality. “Every 11th has its 13th” is now a popular slogan in Venezuela, referring to the date of the coup and the date of the popular uprising which restored Chávez.

An international example

Already this popular victory is being seen as an international example. Chileans present at the Caracas gathering said that Venezuela’s victory over the coup-mongers was the vindication of Allende, and Gloria Gaitán, daughter of the great Colombian popular leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán assassinated in 1948, proclaimed that “With Chávez Gaitán is back!” – a reference to the popular chant of “Volvió, volvió, volvió!” (He’s back, he’s back, he’s back!) which celebrates Chávez’ return on 13 April 2002.

One of the progressive Venezuelan military officers speaking at the forum, Captain Eliécer Otaiza, declared that he is confident there will be a world-wide “13th of April” in which the peoples of the world will reject the war-mongering policies of Bush and Blair. Hebe de Bonafini of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo from Argentina – one of the countries where for obvious reasons it is most difficult to accept the idea of the military siding with the people -explained how she had been convinced of the revolutionary commitment of Chávez and his comrades-at-arms, and presented the Venezuelan President with the emblematic white scarf of her movement. Chávez swore always to keep the scarf as a reminder of what the military should not do.

The reality of change

The international gathering was not limited to rhetoric and emotion, however justified. There were also thematic panels on the constitution, on participatory democracy and popular initiative, on the environment and health, on the world economy, neoliberalism and the alternatives, etc. Venezuelan and international delegates exchanged views on the struggle to build a different world, in an atmosphere reminiscent of the World Social Forums and other anti-globalisation gatherings.

International visitors were able to appreciate the reality of change in Venezuela: popular education in the Bolivarian schools, community housing and neighbourhood improvement projects in slum areas, agrarian reform, the Women’s Development Bank and Bank of the Sovereign People which provide micro-credit for popular initiatives, and alternative media outlets which are breaking the commercial information monopoly. Many foreign delegates also visited popular neighbourhoods around Caracas to see these achievements for themselves.

The Venezuelan revolution has arrived on the international stage. The myths and distortions about militarism and dictatorship under Chávez can no longer have the slightest credibility. This is the first real popular revolution of the 21st century, and the most important message to come out of this gathering is the urgency of organising solidarity.