Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez followed his re-election in December by announcing a new political party to be ‘with him in government’. Edgardo Lander, an academic who has played an active part in the Venezuelan revolutionary process, explains his doubts about such an approach to building socialism for the 21st century
There is no possibility of
building a democratic
alternative to the capitalist
order, of pursuing a
project of 'socialism in the 21st
century', without first having a
profound debate on the historical
experience of 'really-existing
socialism' in the 20th century -
particularly in its hegemonic form
in the USSR. We can't start by
dismissing that as the experience
of the last century and arguing
that the historical conditions of
the new century will allow for the
building of a new experience free
of the burden of such a past.
As a 'superior' democratic
alternative to the capitalist order
of exploitation, the socialism of
the 20th century was a
resounding failure. Not only did it
not overcome the formal
limitations of liberal democracy,
but it built an authoritarian order
that ended up destroying any idea
of democracy. Inherent to that
model was the denial of the
extraordinary ethnic and cultural
diversity of the planet, which it
tried to subdue in a universal
'proletarian' culture. In terms of
production, the USSR experience
deepened many of the negative
trends of the capitalist model. It
unquestioningly perpetuated the
patterns of knowledge,
technology, production and
patriarchy used to exploit the rest
of nature. This led to a pattern of
environmental destruction even
more accelerated than that of
capitalist societies.
If we are to introduce the idea
of socialism in the 21st century
as a new historical experience, a
radically democratic society that
incorporates and celebrates the
diversity of human experience
and is able to live in harmony
with all life forms on the planet,
we must articulate a profound
critique of that historical
experience. Without a clear
diagnosis of the reasons why the
party-state model of the USSR
led to the establishment of an
authoritarian order that found its
highest expression in Stalinism,
we won't have the tools to
prevent its repetition. Without a
radical questioning of the
philosophy of the Eurocentric
history that shaped socialism and
Marxism in the 19th and 20th
centuries, we won't be able to
incorporate one of the most
amazing achievements of the
popular struggles of the past few
decades - the assertion of the
immense plurality of human
histories and cultures and the
need to protect that diversity.
Without a critique of the basic
principles of the scientific and
technological model of western
industrial society, even those
projects for change that present
themselves as radically anticapitalist
will just emphasise the
authoritarian and destructive
patterns of our society - as they
have done in the past.
So far in Venezuela, the public
debate around the idea of
socialism in the 21st century
hasn't even begun to address
these points. But if this debate
doesn't open up we run the risk
that the idea becomes an empty
slogan, or that we confuse the
ability to speak a phrase -
'socialism in the 21st century' -
with knowledge of what we're
talking about. Then the slogan
actually hides the absence of
collective reflection and builds a
false consensus - the consensus
of silence.
At the centre of the needed
debate on the previous
experience of socialism are the
roles of the state and the party in
the possibility of building a
democratic society. The stateparty
monolith monopolised
every aspect of collective life and
ended up suffocating any debate
or dissent, and thus the very
possibility of plurality and
democracy. So today we must
put the role and character of the
state, and its relationship with
the different forms of
organisation and association that
make up society, at the heart of
our quest for a new kind of
socialism. Also key is discussion
of the political and organisational
modes of operation that
contribute to building democracy.
The historical experience strongly
suggests that the state-party
model is not a path that leads to
democracy.
That is why the way Chavez
launched his latest political
initiative - to establish a single
party of the forces supporting the
'Bolivarian process' - is extremely
worrying. On 15 December, ten
days after his crushing election
victory, he simply announced that
he had decided it was necessary
to create a single party. He
suggested calling it United
Socialist Party of Venezuela.
'I declare that I am going to
create a new party,' he told a rally
at the Teatro Teresa Carreo. 'I
invite whoever wants to join me
to come with me … Those
parties that want to stay [as
parties], go ahead, but they will
be out of the government. I only
want one party to govern with
me. The votes don't belong to any
party, they belong to Chavez and
to the people, don't be fooled.'
It is worrying that this is how
something of such importance for
the future of Venezuela has been
decided. It is even more
problematic to see how this
announcement was received by
the most relevant political forces
and spokespeople of chavismo.
In one of the first public
reactions to the announcement,
Elvis Amoroso said that his
organisation would comply with
the decision of their leader.
Amoroso is the leader of the
party founded by Chavez, the
Movimiento V Republica (MVR),
or Movement for the Fifth
Republic, which will be dissolved
to be part of the new party.
The Chavez ally and former
vice president, Diosdado Cabello,
said : 'The single party is a reality,
and in this sense there is nothing
to discuss. The only thing left to
do is to organise the ideological
congress that will be held during
the first trimester of 2007 in
order to come up with the
guidelines to be implemented to
bring this proposal to life.'
According to Francisco
Ameliach, director general of the
MVR and member of its single
party commission, it is the head
of state, as president of the
organisation, who has the final
say when it comes to the party.
For the time being, he said,
Chavez had not given any
concrete instructions on this. But
almost immediately, the MVR
started the formal procedures to
dissolve itself.
Several minor organisations
and political groups quickly
announced their affiliation to the
new party. According to the
secretary of the national
organization of the Socialist
League, Wilfredo Jiménez, his
organisation welcomed the
proposal: 'We make our task the
building of endogenous socialism,
from the bottom up in all its
expressions: workers, peasants,
indigenous people, communities,
students, housewives and those
in the informal economy, among
others. Moreover, we commit
ourselves to the building method
proposed by Commander Hugo
Chávez Frías … Before taking the
decision, there will be a popular
referendum in January to take
account of the 33 years of
struggle in Venezuela.'
The spokespeople of the
Movimiento Electoral di Pueblo
(MEP), the Frente Cívico Militar
Bolivariano and the Movimiento
Democracia Directa said similar
things. The Partido Unidad
Popular Venezolana (UPV) not only
announced its willingness to be
part of the new party, but then
went to the national electoral
council to announce its
dissolution. Only Patria Para
Todos (PPT), the Communist
Party of Venezuela (PCV) and
Podemos expressed doubts
about the process.
According to Rafael Uzcátegui,
the PPT's national organisation
secretary, this is not a decision
that can be taken without internal
debate: 'We can't undermine
internal democracy in the name
of unity. In this we don't agree
with President Hugo Chávez.
Debate is the only way to build
consciousness. PTT is a
disciplined and democratic
organisation… We are the
children of debate. Hugo Chavez's
proposal to build a single party
must be considered by the
national assembly of the party'.
Uzcátegui highlighted the
importance of pluralism by saying
that: 'There is no unanimity on
the vision of socialism.'
Meanwhile, the political bureau
of the Communist Party issued a
statement in which it reiterated
the party's 'consistent affiliation
with the strategic task of building
the organic unity of the
Venezuelan revolutionary
movement' and announced an
extraordinary national congress to
'define the course to be taken by
the PCV and the Communist
Youth in relation to organic unity'.
Most of the leaders of
Podemos have declared their
agreement with the building of a
single party, but they demand
respectful and egalitarian
treatment. According to Podemos
general secretary Ismael Garcia:
'In this dialogue there can't be
poor or orphan relatives.'
Luis Tascon, an MP and leader
of the MVR, dismisses these
doubts, arguing that if these the
PPT, PCV and Podemos don't
immediately accept the proposal
it is just because they want to
keep their 'quotas of power …
They would rather be small fish in
a big pond.'
Apart from this limited
exchange, there has been no
substantive debate on the best
way to organise politically in order
to promote a process of
deepening democracy in
Venezuela. Many questions
remain unanswered.
Does it make any sense to
create a socialist party before
collectively starting a process of
working out the kind of socialism
we all aspire to? Aren't we
putting the cart before the horse?
From the point of view of
plurality and democracy, what
future is there for a party created
in such a way? Is it possible to
have a debate that is
controversial, democratic and
diverse on the path the country is
taking if some of the basic
options that define such a path
are announced as decisions that
have been taken before the
debate even starts?
Will it be possible to take
steps towards a greater balance
between the - so far -
irreplaceable leadership of
Chavez in the current political
process and other more diverse
spaces and leaderships, with the
aim of expressing the broad
range of positions and visions
in relation to building an
alternative society?
Hugo Chavez's conclusive
victory in the December election
presents us with a very
favourable conjuncture for the
opening of such debates and
controversies about the society
we want. We will have a lot to
regret in the future if we don't
take advantage of this
opportunity.
