{"id":171930,"date":"2020-11-02T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2020-11-02T12:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=171930"},"modified":"2020-11-02T10:58:46","modified_gmt":"2020-11-02T10:58:46","slug":"venezuela-maduros-anti-blockade-law-deepens-debate-over-revolutions-future","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/11\/venezuela-maduros-anti-blockade-law-deepens-debate-over-revolutions-future\/","title":{"rendered":"Venezuela: Maduro\u2019s Anti-Blockade Law Deepens Debate over Revolution\u2019s Future"},"content":{"rendered":"

Venezuela\u2019s National Constituent Assembly (ANC) passed a controversial anti-blockade law on October 8.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro holds up a copy of his anti-blockade law.<\/p><\/div>\n

30 Oct 2020 – <\/em>Elected in July 2017, the ANC was an initiative taken by President Nicolas Maduro to counter months of violent right-wing opposition protests. Its official mandate is to promote a national dialogue on reforms to the constitution as a way out of the country\u2019s deep economic and political crisis.<\/p>\n

But three years on \u2014 and with few, if any, initiatives emanating from the ANC \u2014 the economic crisis has only deepened.<\/p>\n

This has been\u00a0largely due to the United States ramping up sanctions on Venezuela since 2017. These sanctions have worked to cripple Venezuela\u2019s oil industry, blocked its access to international financial markets and scared off potential investors under threat of financial punishment. It is estimated that the economic sanctions have cost Venezuela\u2019s economy upwards of US$116 billion, and contributed to the deaths of more<\/a> than<\/a> 40,000 <\/a>Venezuelans<\/a>.<\/a><\/p>\n

Faced with this dire situation, Maduro proposed the new anti-blockade law, arguing it is essential to helping circumvent the sanctions. But some sectors believe it represents an important departure from the socialist policies of his predecessor, Hugo Ch\u00e1vez.<\/p>\n

Under Ch\u00e1vez, the Venezuelan state nationalised\u00a0key natural resources and industries for the purposes of redistributing wealth towards fighting\u00a0poverty and rapidly\u00a0expanding\u00a0access to education, healthcare and basic services.<\/p>\n

Based on the premise that the\u00a0only way\u00a0to\u00a0get\u00a0rid of\u00a0poverty\u00a0was to\u00a0give power to the poor, the government targeted\u00a0funds\u00a0at initiatives that encouraged the self-organisation of the people.\u00a0This included experiments in community-run\u00a0social missions focused on education and health, attempts at democratising\u00a0workplaces through cooperatives and worker-run enterprises, and initiatives in\u00a0local grassroots democracy such as community councils and communes. These elements of peoples’ power became the backbone\u00a0of\u00a0Ch\u00e1vez’s Bolivarian Revolution.<\/p>\n

But due to the\u00a0brutal sanctions regime and hyperinflation, which\u00a0has pulverised workers’ wages, Venezuelans have seen many\u00a0of these social and democratic\u00a0gains reversed. Survival, not self-organisation,\u00a0has become the main focus of daily life for many.<\/p>\n

Shift in economic policy<\/h2>\n

Speaking to Green Left<\/em>, revolutionary activist and sociologist Reinaldo Iturriza said the anti-blockade law should be viewed as part of a broader shift in the government\u2019s economic orientation, which dates back to the Bolivarian Economic Agenda launched in 2016.<\/p>\n

Back then, amid a severe drop in oil revenue and defeat in the December 2015 parliamentary elections, the government found itself at a crossroads. Through the Bolivarian Economic Agenda initiative, Iturriza explained, the government opted for the path of building \u201calliances with certain sectors of the capitalist class\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis was, without doubt, a point of inflection in the Bolivarian process; not necessarily because the government decided to \u2018negotiate\u2019 with a section of the capitalist class,\u201d something it had done previously, including under Ch\u00e1vez. Instead, the key difference was it was now negotiating from \u201ca position of weakness.\u201d<\/p>\n

A former minister in Maduro\u2019s government, Iturriza acknowledges that in the situation faced by the government, retreating in order to \u201creorganise your forces\u201d made sense. \u201cHowever, what has happened since then has resembled more a disorderly retreat than anything else.\u201d<\/p>\n

With popular mobilisation at an ebb, moderate forces within Chavismo \u201cfelt their time had come\u201d. Increasingly, certain party leaders and state officials began to publicly speak out against further expropriations and in support of re-privatising certain activities in the oil sector, views that \u201cuntil then had been inconceivable\u201d within the revolution.<\/p>\n

In the absence of any national debate promoted by the government over the need to re-orientate government policy, these voices at the time appeared to be \u201cisolated opinions\u201d. But, with hindsight it is clear they represented a \u201csign of the new times\u201d, said Iturriza.<\/p>\n

\u201cMismanagement of certain public companies and corruption, along with deliberate disinvestment and a profound lack of confidence in the organised people \u2026 contributed to positioning the idea that it was indispensable to establish \u2018strategic alliances\u2019 with sections of the capitalist class in order to get out of the quagmire.\u201d<\/p>\n

Doing so, it was argued, required opening up new areas for investment, including through the reversal of nationalisations that had occurred during the Bolivarian Revolution.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe problem, I insist, was not the \u2018strategic alliances\u2019 that, in certain cases, were undoubtedly necessary or convenient. This is not a question of principles,\u201d said Iturriza.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe real problem was that in many cases, the choice was made to disinvest: to abandon public companies with the aim of privatising them.<\/p>\n

\u201cDisinvesting is a political decision, and not the inevitable consequence of mismanagement. In fact, in many of these cases (we still don\u2019t know the full story, because the process has been very opaque) undoubtedly the opposite was true: public mismanagement was the inevitable consequence of disinvestment, as well as corruption.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn any case, the key here is that the decision could have been made to correct errors in management and guarantee public ownership.\u201d<\/p>\n

Concession or re-orientation<\/h2>\n

The Bol\u00edvar and Zamora Revolutionary Current (CRBZ) is a left-wing grassroots current inside the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela.<\/p>\n

While acknowledging that \u201cconstructive criticisms\u201d have been made of the law, CRBZ activist Jonatan Vargas told GL<\/em> that, when judging its content, we have to \u201ctake into account the reality of what Venezuela is living through\u201d.<\/p>\n

For Vargas, the new law is a \u201cpolitical weapon\u201d that could help \u201cstabilise the economy and promote foreign investment, all of which is needed to produce and develop the country\u201d.<\/p>\n

Moreover, he adds, the law \u201cstrengthens the state\u201d by \u201cunifying all existing public powers behind the central objective of defending the economy\u201d, as it attempts to maneuver around the criminal sanctions.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat we need to do now is continue the debate around the anti-blockade law among all Venezuelans, so that everyone can comprehend its objectives, functions, capacities, reach, limitations and the controls it is subject to.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, the\u00a0fundamental subject of the revolution, the people, must guarantee its application through revolutionary vigilance, to push\u00a0forward\u00a0and avoid distortions.”<\/p>\n

The Unitary League of Chavista Socialists (LUCHAS), which is also active within the PSUV, has taken a very different view.<\/p>\n

LUCHAS spokesperson Stalin Perez Borges told GL<\/em> that, while understanding the need for \u201can anti-blockade law, an emergency economic law\u201d, the reality is that \u201cthis is not what they have presented to us.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cRather than confiscating the property of those who have sabotaged the economy, the law will grant them greater powers for investment. Moreover, it could lead to the violation of important laws, and even the constitution, all of which were approved under Ch\u00e1vez and were the result of big, societal-wide debates.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similar concerns have been raised by, among many others, high-profile left intellectuals such as Luis<\/a> Britto<\/a> Garcia<\/a> and Pascualina<\/a> Curcio<\/a>, constituent assembly members Mar\u00eda<\/a> Alejandra<\/a> D\u00edaz<\/a> and Tel\u00e9maco<\/a> Figueroa<\/a>, pro-revolution parties such as the Communist<\/a> Party<\/a> of<\/a> Venezuela<\/a> and Homeland<\/a> for<\/a> All<\/a>, and popular movements including those involved in For<\/a> All<\/a> Our<\/a> Struggles<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Among the articles of concern are those that remove democratic controls or protections by, among other things: allowing for the creation of a separate budget for the purpose of promoting the Bolivarian Economic Agenda, but that lacks any legislative oversight (Article 18); the removal of the National Assembly\u2019s competency to ratify international agreements and contracts (Article 10); and infringements on the right to free speech of those who make information public regarding certain contracts, potentially, even if this is done to expose acts of corruption (Article 37).<\/p>\n

Critics have also warned of the pro-privatisation logic of articles that allow the executive to modify \u201cthe constitution, management, administration, functioning and participation of the state in certain public or mixed companies\u201d (Article 26), as well as \u201cstimulate or benefit the partial or complete participation, management and operation of the national and international private sector in the development of the national economy\u201d (Article 29).<\/p>\n

Britto Garcia writes that \u201crather than expanding state ownership or social administration, as a socialist government should do, the law tends toward broadening and strengthening private property, above all that owned by international interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

Perez Borges said: \u201cIt’s clear that the intent is to privilege private investment. The government is under the illusion that this law will help the country get around the blockade and get out of the crisis.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut this is highly unlikely, given the current state of affairs in Venezuela and the global economic situation. Even if this was a possibility, nothing can be done at the expense of our sovereignty and our constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Summing up the project, Perez Borges said: \u201cThis law is very concerning, because it represents a profound shift away from the political project of 21st century socialism.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government should present its proposal again, but this time to the country, so that everyone can debate it instead of trying to hide its new pro-imperialist and anti-democratic orientation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Debate is critical<\/h2>\n

Yet, rather than promote discussion, some figures within the PSUV simply<\/a> denounced<\/a> critics<\/a> as \u201caiding the right\u201d. Controversially, the bill was approved by the ANC without<\/a> any<\/a> formal<\/a> discussion<\/a>, and with some<\/a> delegates<\/a> stating they were denied access to the assembly after voicing criticisms.<\/p>\n

Others within the governing party, however, believe a debate on the government\u2019s economic orientation is critical to the future of the revolution.<\/p>\n

Responding to the debate, former vice-president and PSUV leader Elias Jaua wrote<\/a>: \u201cIt has been a long time since I have seen such important factors within Chavismo challenge and demand explanations with such courage and passion, in support of the principles that sustain the Bolivarian and Chavista project\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis debate, forced upon us by public opinion, has allowed us to see that broad sections of Chavismo are willing to defend the foundational values of the Bolivarian Revolution.\u201d<\/p>\n

While stopping short of casting judgement on the new law, Jaua wrote: \u201cWe will have to wait and see what the [government\u2019s] concrete plans are in order to evaluate if this [new law] signifies, as it appears it might, a shift away from one of the fundamentals of Chavismo: the safeguarding national property in the hands of the state.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the meantime, we need \u201cto open up authentic spaces for internal debate, where any changes being made to the model constructed by Chavez as a result of the current circumstances, are properly outlined\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn politics, tactical manoeuvres have to be explained in a transparent manner; it is necessary to convince others,\u201d because frank discussion is crucial to revolutionary unity, Jaua wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cHumility, correct methods of leadership, and the willingness to convince rather than impose are key to maintaining unity and lifting the spirits of a force confronting the gravest foreign aggression of modern times.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBeyond the anti-blockade law\u201d, said Iturriza, \u201cI believe there are few more important things that could be done than to carry out a critical balance sheet of the Bolivarian Economic Agenda\u201d.<\/p>\n

A good starting point, argues Iturriza, would be for the revolution\u2019s leadership \u201cto understand that the opacity that has characterised the government\u2019s actions in the area of economic policies has been a crass error\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cGiven the results, there is more than enough evidence that, in attempting to find a way out of this mess, we have ended up deeper within the labyrinth,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf what occurred was a disorderly retreat, then what we need to do is reorganise our forces so that at some point we can be in a position to go on the offensive.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be good if we acknowledged that we chose one among many possible paths, and that, given the results have not been favourable to the popular majorities, we can and should choose a new one. Within the revolution, always.\u201d<\/p>\n

Go to Original – greenleft.org.au<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Venezuela\u2019s National Constituent Assembly passed a controversial anti-blockade law on October 8. The United States\u2019 sanctions since 2017 have worked to cripple Venezuela\u2019s oil industry, blocked its access to international financial markets and scared off potential investors under threat of financial punishment. It cost its economy upwards of US$116 billion, and contributed to the deaths of more than 40,000 Venezuelans.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":171931,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[53],"tags":[867,1473,120,393,276,267,1764,1050,378,541,559,234,109,287,923,1961,249,70,557,126,172],"class_list":["post-171930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-latin-america-and-the-caribbean","tag-anglo-america","tag-blockade","tag-conflict","tag-coup","tag-democracy","tag-geopolitics","tag-guaido","tag-imperialism","tag-journalism","tag-latin-america-caribbean","tag-maduro","tag-media","tag-politics","tag-power","tag-sanctions","tag-silvercorp-mercenaries","tag-trump","tag-usa","tag-venezuela","tag-violence","tag-west"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171930","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171930\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/171931"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}