February's quote in Chavez's Venezuela: The Armed Force is Chavista.
"The Armed Force is Chavista. The Armed Force has Chávez in its heart and Chávez has the Armed Force in his heart and soul"
02.04.2012
= new reply since forum marked as read
Presuming that Hugo Chavez said this, and that it is an accurate quote--both risky assumptions, considering the source--it is still not possible to assess the quote without a context.
For instance, Chavez was a member of the Venezuelan military--in the elite paratrooper corps. He would of course have an emotional attachment to the military. Further, the loyal military supported the Constitution and Venezuela's elected president, Chavez, when a disloyal faction of the military and other bad actors in Venezuela attempted a coup in 2002. Yet more reason for Chavez to be fond of the military (in view of the loyal military's support of Chavez and of lawful government). The government then had necessarily to deal with the disloyal faction of the military. It did so very gently, indeed--and only dismissed the topmost participants and gave the benefit of the doubt to all others. More evidence of Chavez's attachment to the military and more reason for the military to be grateful to Chavez.
Finally, MOST Venezuelans are "chavistas"--have supported Chavez, his government and his social justice and other policies, through election after election, with big majorities. So it is quite natural that most military personnel are "chavistas" as well. They are citizens, too--most of them lowly soldiers from poor families. They get to have political opinions, too. They get to vote. And Venezuela's military is much closer to the people than ours is. They are often called upon to do "National Guard" or "Corps of Engineers" type duties--helping build local infrastructure, first responders in a natural disaster, etc. They are often quartered close to local communities and are available for all kinds of local projects. So they would be more likely, even than our military, to reflect common opinion.
Upshot: This quote could simply be Chavez's reflection on all of these realities--his own military service, the loyal military's support of lawful rule, the removal of the top coup-conspirators from the military (but not so as to harm or destroy the military), the close connections between the military and the civilian population and the popularity of his government with both.
In other words, he may have been saying: "There will be no more military coups." He might have been saying more--that the military, on the whole, supports social justice and other policies of the Chavez government. What is wrong with that? Not a thing.
And I find it ironical that it is the RIGHTWING "opposition"--that tried to perpetrate a coup and destroy a lawful government--who are alleging that the Venezuelan military will intervene in a Chavez electoral defeat and...what?--set up a coup government? Talk about projecting! There is simply no evidence whatever that that could happen. It is a rightwing fantasy--much like some of our "Mad Tea Partyers"' fantasies.
If Chavez were to be defeated in this year's election (and he is more likely to be defeated by cancer than by the voters), what would happen? That is a very interesting question. I think what would happen is that the Big Secret that the U.S. State Department and its Corporate 'News' Propaganda Machine has been trying to keep from us--that the Bolivarian Revolution has been created, not by Chavez but by the Venezuelan people--would be revealed. There is NO WAY that Venezuelans will tolerate the dismantling of their "New Deal." And any rightwing president who tries to do so is going to immediately plunge in the polls and be thrown out in the next election. If the rightwing tries such a thing, a fierce political struggle will ensue, and the chavistas (read "New Dealers"
will likely win it. The right--if they gain power--may well try to dismantle Venezuela's honest, aboveboard vote counting system, along with Venezuelan's "New Deal" (as they have had to do here, to dismantle our New Deal), but that, too, will be blatant and obvious (though, for sure, will be blacked out in the Corporate 'news') and it will take time (as it has done here).
Then there is the larger context--of the huge leftist democracy movement that Venezuelans have inspired--and were the pioneer of--throughout the region. Venezuelans exist in a context that is much more pro-demoracy and pro-social justice than anywhere else in the world. Rightwing bullshit, like tampering with the voting system, would be exposed (in the region, not here). Venezuelans would know about it. And Venezuelans are not known for being quiet about their democratic rights and their right to prosperity, to inclusion and to social justice.
So what would happen? The right would have to COMPROMISE, and, unless they became lawless again, bend way over toward the rights and prosperity of most Venezuelans. As with Reagan, here, the right and their corporate sponsors have a 40 or 50 year project to overturn the Bolivarian Revolution (Venezuela's "New Deal" . And the context of the rest of Latin America--especially South America--is an important one. Much of Latin America is barreling ahead with their own various forms of Bolivarian Revolution--social justice, inclusion, use of the country's resources to help the people who live there, widespread citizen participation, etc. The U.S. and its transglobal corporations and its CIA and its Pentagon "Southern Command" and the Miami mafia would not be idle. But I don't think they would succeed with their plan (which I believe is to create a "circle the wagons" region--Central America/the Caribbean--including Venezuela's huge oil reserves on its Caribbean coast and in its northern provinces). I don't think things will go that far right in Venezuela ever again (U.S. "free trade for the rich"; Exxon Mobil taking most of the oil profits; Venezuelans impoverished all over again, except for the rich elite).
Then there's the Venezuelan military, which--as Chavez was likely pointing out in the above quote--is "chavista"--that is, pro-social justice and pro-democracy. THEY would not support rightwing bullshit such as tampering with the voting system or turning Venezuela's huge oil reserves back over to Exxon Mobil by some sort of coup (illegally privatizing the oil without a vote). And the rightwing knowing this--and hearing it from Chavez--is no bad deal. The military supports the Constitution and lawful government, along with its general sympathy for social justice. The right will never again--or at least not into the distant future--dare to proceed with illegal, unconstitutional coups, of one kind or another, against the Venezuelan people--whether giving their oil away, or shooting hundreds of protestors, or rigging elections, or outright suspending the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, or whatever they may be tempted to try. The Venezuelan people stand in their way. The Venezuelan military stands behind the Venezuelan people. And the region looks on and exerts influence through various new regional organizations such as CELAC (all Latin American countries--no U.S.) and UNASUR (all South American countries--no U.S.).
The right--if they win the presidency--will have to act lawfully and in accord with "the will of the people" for the indefinite future because of what has happened to this point including this long "New Deal" period led by Chavez.
It's possible that the U.S. and far rightwing forces will use a "liberal"-talking rightwinger (like the current candidate), if he is elected, to deliberately bate the Venezuelan people with anti-chavista (anti-"New Deal," anti-democracy) actions, and instigate destabilization, preliminary to installation of a naked far right regime. That points to another plus at having a military that is pro-"New Deal" (chavista). They will not be easily manipulated into war against their own people.
I may be over-interpreting Chavez. It's hard to tell with no context, no link and no attribution. But I think that, by "chavista," HE means "pro-democracy" (in its fullest sense). The military is "for the people." And, as I said, there is no evidence whatever that he means anything else--for instance, that the military, which emerged in strong support of the Constitution, in 2002, would overturn it, if Chavez lost an election. It is the RIGHT that has done that, not the Left.
Indeed, it is something of a political culture problem in Venezuela that "chavista" is pretty much equivalent to "pro-democracy" (rule by "the people," not by rich elites). The rich have shown contempt for democracy. If they had their way, they would be ruling now by fiat. That is what they were trying to do in 2002. Venezuela needs a "loyal opposition" that is pro-democracy and the right has had one helluva time (including lots of help from the USAID) trying to look like one. Whether they will ever be genuinely pro-democracy, I really can't say. But the chavistas have kind of a corner on the word "democracy" at the moment. They really are FAR more inclusive than the right and far more "for the people" as a whole.
This political imbalance--rule by the rich vs democratic rule--is not a good thing--with the right going off the deep end, like our Bushites and "Mad Tea Partyers." Society needs variety, balance and loyalty to "the people" in its leadership, and we haven't seen those qualities on the right, here or in Venezuela, in a very long time. At least Venezuelans have a real Left--which we don't have here any more--which provides a "big tent" (as the Democratic Party used to, here), reflecting the interests and political views of the most '"the people." The chavistas' new socialist party does that--provides a "big tent." What does the right provide? Threatened coups? More rule by the rich? More destruction by greed? More giveaways of the oil riches? Less equality?
The Chavez government has turned Venezuela into "THE most equal country in Latin America," according to a recent report by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. The right has started to pay lip service to this great achievement--though, of course, without acknowledging how it happened--but whether or not they truly intend to build upon the "New Deal" that Venezuelans created for themselves and chose Chavez to lead, rather than tear it to pieces and restore oligarchic rule (as happened here, starting with the Reagan regime) is the critical question.
Upshot: I HOPE Venezuelans can achieve a balanced political culture--for instance, a genuine political dialogue about the integration of capitalist and socialist principles, or about "south-south" vs "north-south" trade, or about the type of change that is best for society at the given moment, etc. And I think that there is more hope for such a balanced political culture and discussion there than there is here, precisely because of the Bolivarian Revolution. Here, the only things our Corporate Media allows us to "discuss" are how best to loot social programs, how to make the rich richer and how to use our war machine to bully others. Some dialogue!
Venezuela has more potential for REAL dialogue, because the chavistas have opened it up--not only by creating public media where alternative views can be expressed (apart from the Corporate Media, which is all rightwing all the time) but by their successful inclusion and general prosperity programs, which have created a bottom line of income and grass roots power for the poor majority. Here, in the U.S., the poor majority has no power and NO VOICE. The poor majority are losing everything--their jobs, their homes, education for their children, basic human rights (old age pensions, medical care), hope--and in addition, nobody in the political establishment gives a crap, and the political establishment is owned by the Corporate Rulers who own and control all media outlets (except the internet). The rich have gone off the deep end, into fascism. And there is nothing else--no other ideas coming forth. Venezuela's democracy is far more alive and hopeful. That is very much the accomplishment of the chavistas. Indeed, they have opened up the political dialogue in the entire region. They were the pioneers!
To fantasize that the chavistas would support a military overthrow of their democracy is way off the mark. I suppose it could happen. Anything can happen. But I think that Venezuelans are too democratic for that--and have worked too hard, in so many ways, to establish real democracy, to throw it over for military rule, just like the far right tried to do. I'm sure that the vast majority of Venezuelans don't ever want to see that happen again. Remember, the military ended up supporting the Constitution and lawful rule. That, I think, is the sentiment of the vast majority of Venezuelans, and, unless the right--if they gain the presidency--starts going off the deep end, with illegal, unconstitutional actions and radical rightwing/corporate oppression--the rule of law will prevail. Democracy presents the best chance for the interests of the poor majority to be served. I think that Venezuelans know this better than anyone. They will not easily give it up and will have to be mightily provoked to do so.
But since we still don't have context, occasion, attribution and other helpful hints, it's impossible to say for sure.
You may not agree that "chavista" means "democracy"--and it may not be a good thing to make such an equation, in the bigger picture. But I think that's what he means. I had a similar belief when I was young about the Democratic Party. It seemed--and, indeed, was--far more "democratic" than the Republican Party. It was the "big tent" party--welcoming to all the excluded groups, to blacks and other minorities (notably Hispanics), to women, to the poor, to workers, and it greatly encouraged grass roots organizing. Republicans were white and rich. They had money. We had numbers. Money is not democratic. it is acquisitive and self-protective. Democracy is about numbers--the majority and the interests of the majority, as opposed to those who represent "organized money" (as FDR put it).
The party leaders have sort of melded today. Neither speaks for, or attends to the interests of, the vast majority of people. The Dem leaders pay more lip service to the interest of the majority but it is largely insincere. And the Republicans--who were never democratic to begin with--have gone off the deep end, into fascism, madness and incoherence.
I see this same problem in Venezuela. That's why my guess is that Chavez really does think that "chavista" means "democratic." He has some reason to make that association. His government has certainly attended to the interests of the vast majority and has dramatically expanded citizen participation. But--as with the Democratic Party here--it is probably a mistake to associate any sector of the political spectrum with democracy itself. It can lead you to misread things--for instance, mistaking the Democratic Party of today with "the party of the people." It is still "big tent" at the grass roots level. It is NOT at the leadership level. They now serve the rich as well and help perpetuate a system of vast corruption and looting, not to mention unjust war.
The challenge for the "opposition" in Venezuela is to REALLY come round to a pro-social justice position, and, I think, to sever its ties to the U.S. They need to offer a genuine "liberal" alternative to socialism. And I don't think they can, because I think they still believe in the rich getting richer and in their "born to rule" delusion. They are taking their cues from the rich HERE--who have gone off the deep end. Their new candidate for president is a little smoother than that, but, bottom line, I don't think they've changed. They want to UNDO the Bolivarian Revolution not build upon it. And if they gain power and proceed with a wrecking ball (as the Reaganites and Bushites did here, against the "New Deal" , they are making a very big mistake and will end up with a much harsher reaction than the Bolivarian Revolution--and very likely with more blood on their hands. They really need to think about democracy and the welfare of all Venezuelans. I don't think they're "there" yet--and that is why Chavez thinks of them as un-democratic (not "chavista" . And I have to agree with him.
The danger of this has always been "hubris" by Chavez and his close associates. I don't think they have gone down that road, thus far. Nothing that they've done, thus far, has been much different from what FDR and the New Dealers did--exercising power on behalf of the poor majority. In both cases (FDR, Chavez), the exercise of power, on a few occasions, became a bit high-handed (or some might say daring, brave, clever). But, on the whole, Chavez, like FDR, stuck with and believes in democracy--in "people power." The other danger of an FDR-like leader is, of course, that the reform becomes equivalent with the leader, personally. That, too, is a danger to Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution.
But I think that this reform era, in Venezuela, really was and is a grass roots-up movement. Such movements are almost always disorganized and fractious and don't succeed until they do find a leader and a government, and can put them in power, to implement the movement's goals. A strong leader is needed against entrenched, oligarchic powers. But without Chavez (if he dies or loses the election), the movement will go on and other leadership will arise. I really do NOT see Chavez as a "dictator." For one thing, it took the combined power of the people of Venezuela, who came out into the streets in support of Chavez and lawful government, and the loyal military, to restore lawful government and to put Chavez back into his rightful office. He is beholden to these forces--to the people, to a loyal military. And also, it should be said, to other leftist leaders in the region, who form quite a powerful block in support of their countries' sovereignty and democracy. He cannot act without the people, the military and regional support. And I do think he knows this. He may have been something of a "caudillo" in his youth. He no longer is. Gruff and outspoken as he is, and campaign rhetoric aside, he has chosen to be a "cooperator." He has HAD to be a "cooperator."
The "opposition" doesn't see it that way, I'm sure. They get the sharp end of his barbs (some of it well deserved; some of it possibly too combative or impolitic, ) and they have had no success, thus far, in appealing to a majority that is loathe to give up its "FDR." But I do see it in Chavez's handling of his own government and political supporters and in his regional relations. He wants people to like him. He wants people to work with him. He seeks consensus. He does not lord it over others. He went so far out of his way to achieve a cooperative relationship with Uribe in Colombia, time and again making friendly gestures, that he almost fell into a war trap. He gave Uribe many chances before he gave up on him as a hopeless fascist and tool of the Bushites. And the moment Uribe was gone, he made peace with Colombia--to the benefit of both countries.
Democracy is a broad concept, hard to define. But its bottom line is citizen participation. There is simply no question that the chavistas and the Chavez government have improved citizen participation in Venezuela. This is reflected in the increased numbers of people who vote and in many other ways. Like the Democratic Party here, during the "New Deal," they really have been more democratic (more inclusive, more participatory, more grass roots oriented) than the rightwing "opposition." And the rightwing opposition went through a period of disloyalty to democracy (with the coup attempt and other tactics, like the oil bosses' lockout) in addition to their conniving with the USAID, etc. It may not be wise to say it, but there is truth in the chavista = democracy equation. And I think that the burden is on the "opposition" to prove they, too, are democratic and are not out to rob Venezuelans of their "New Deal" like our rightwing here. They should stop imitating the U.S. rightwing. Venezuela is way ahead of us on democracy, honest elections, citizen participation and equality. It is not on a downward spiral of the rich looting the poor and imperial bankruptcy, like the U.S. is. If the "opposition" is smart, they will recognize this. And if they're not, they will likely keep losing elections or if they luck into the presidency by attrition (say, if Chavez dies) they will make a royal mess of it, worse than before.