Chavez Frias has already had four years ... and time is running out

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, June 16, 2003 By: Hector Dauphin-Gloire

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:32:09 -0400 From: Hector Dauphin-Gloire montonero22@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: the Bolivarian Revolution

Dear Editor:  In his recent letter Mr. Elio Cequea, presumably a Venezuelan and a supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution, presents an eloquent defense of the Revolution.  I agree with him for the most part, and it is clear that he is a man who loves social justice. I have only two points to quibble with him. The one is minor; but the other leads into questions of deep importance for the future of the revolutionary process ... questions of great concern both for the supporters of Chavez and for his opponents.

I would argue, first of all, with Mr. Cequea's description of the Bolivarian Revolution as the first non-violent, democratic revolution in history.

Mr. Cequea is CLOSE to being correct, in that many of the revolutions that are often supposed to be non-violent, actually include a dose of actual or threatened force.

The liberation of India, for example, would probably not have come about as soon as it did without the Second World War. The end of apartheid in South Africa was at least partially due to the military defeats of the South African army in Angola.

The much-heralded democratization of Costa Rica was carried out by a Social Democratic clique that seized power in a military insurrection, following a disputed election, that at least in its initial stages repressed its political opponents including both the Christian Democrats and the Communists.

The end of the Salazar tyranny in Portugal was brought about when a group of socialist military officers overthrew the government ... it was a military overthrow, even though fairly bloodless.

There have been some non-violent democratic revolutions (in Poland 1989, or in Tanzania 1964, or in Chile under Allende) but they have been very rare ... and often, as in Chile, quickly reversed.

In all these cases, force played a role: either the ruling regime was reasonable or humane enough to step down before further force was required, or force was an ever present threat (implicit force, even if not explicit), or external force (such as a foreign war) weakened the existing regime enough that it could no longer step down.

The Portuguese revolution of 1974 was heralded as a peaceful revolution, a "Carnation Revolution," but let it be remembered that the rose grows with the thorns, and that that peaceful democratization was carried out through a military coup, by Socialists who, though certainly democrats by their lights, were often not liberal democrats in the Western sense.

Truly, hidden within most peaceful revolutions is some violence, somewhere along the line; nine times out of ten, within the rose-scented glove is the curled fist.

I mention this, not to defend either the Bolshevik perspective that all revolutionary violence is justified, nor the Conservative view that no revolutionary violence is justified; surely we can have a more humane, yet realistic outlook which acknowledges that most revolutions involve some force and repression, but seeks to minimize it and refrain as much am possible from harm to non-combatants.

I mention it, rather, in defense of Mr. Cequea's argument: that few governments have ever carried out social change on the order that the Chavez regime hopes for (and that Venezuela needs) without any repression or bloodshed, and that therefore the Chavez government, truly, is to be commended for its moderation and its tolerance.

By the guideline that I mentioned, that force and harm to non-combatants are to be minimized, surely the Chavez revolution deserves the plaudits of the world for the lack of repression, the preservation of liberal freedoms, the relative lack of bloodshed.

Do not point out isolated instances of repression or bloodshed, but simply compare Venezuela's record to, say, that of Costa Rica after its democratic revolution of 1948 (when two major newspapers had been shut down) and then observe the relative tolerance that exists in Venezuela.

My second criticism of Mr. Cequea's argument is more substantive. He argues that revolutions accomplish changes once and for all, and establish a line in history across there shall be no regress. In defense of his point he argues that "France never returned to a monarchy" after its Revolution.

Would that it were so, but it isn't. France returned to a monarchy after the fall of Napoleon in 1815, and had a reactionary monarchy until the 1830 revolution, and then a liberal monarchy until the 1848 revolution.

This may seem like irrelevant history, but it isn't ... it shows, among other things, that History, as some have said of God, "grinds fine but exceedingly slow."

Christianity was the first major creed in the West to proclaim that all men were equal and that slavery was incompatible with God's will for mankind; and truly, as Christianity spread across the Roman Empire, slavery began to break down. But history grinds slow; slavery returned several times, in different forms, as a scourge of Western civilization, and it took twenty full centuries from the birth of Christ for the last remnants of the slave culture of Greece and Rome to be extirpated from Europe.

Progress comes about in the aftermath of revolutions, but it comes about slowly, and in the immediate aftermath of revolutions there is as much frustration of hope as there is ground for exaltation. The French and the Cuban revolutions were both undertaken in the name of justice for the poor and suffering; and indeed, in the long run, the French and Cuban regimes managed to greatly improve the health, education, nutrition, and social solidarity of their poorest citizens.

But in the short run, the French poor were actually hungrier after the Revolution (because the Revolution had expropriated the Church, until that time the only provider of food to the destitute, and had not set up secular charities to take their place).

In the short run, the Cuban poor actually had a lower life expectancy for the years immediately following the 1959 Revolution (because most Cuban doctors, fearing a loss of income and status, left for Miami between 1959 and 1961, hemorrhaging the island's medical infrastructure).

In the short run, things got worse, even though in the long run, Republicanism in France and socialism in Cuba accomplished much good for the poorest citizens of each country.

(And please, for purposes of this discussion, let's leave the Russian Revolution out of it ... the Russian Revolution, in retrospect, was a tragedy, that became hijacked first by the Bolsheviks and then by Stalin. Cuba never had a Stalin, or a Mao, thank God- although there was certainly repression and political execution in Cuba, it never approached nearly the scale that it did in either Russia or China, either in kind or in degree).

This has a cautionary importance for both the opponents of Chavez and for his supporters.

To his opponents, I say this; Remember that revolutions always cause some hardship and sacrifice in the short run, and do not assume that because standards of living for many poor Venezuelans may have dropped in the last four years, they will continue to drop in the future.

Maybe, as the redistributed farms begin being cultivated, as the new industrial cooperatives begin producing, as foreign capital learns to live with Chavez, as the government learns from experience, and as the industries that went on strike realize that further strikes are futile and only hurt the country further, the recession will turn around; and maybe, once the government gains the political strength to carry out real economic redistribution (land reform, food distribution, higher taxes on the wealthy and middle class) the poor will see an even bigger rise in their share of the national income relative to the current property-holding classes.

To those in Venezuela who support Chavez (and I consider myself a strong supporter of Chavez in spirit, even though I'm only a foreign onlooker), I say: Remember that revolutions naturally bring hardship and sacrifice in the short run- our task is to make that short run as short as possible!

Chavez has already had four years, and time is running out before the poor, in whose name Chavez revolted in 1992 and was elected in 1998, lose faith in him. The Chavistas need to carry out responsible and effective economic reform SOON that will do the job and improve conditions for the poor and working classes of Venezuela.

This is my fervent hope; that those who currently hold a privileged economic position will realize that justice and social stability demand that they lose some of their advantages in property, position and privilege, and that the government begins to take more effective and responsible measures to create jobs and improve the well-being of Venezuela's currently impoverished majority.

I pray for this every day, that through some collaboration between the government and its opposition, a solution can be attained, that will bring peace, but more importantly, peace only with JUSTICE.

The lesson of every revolution throughout history is that peace can't stably last without justice, as Pope Paul VI once said. But the lesson of many, many revolutions is just as much that justice doesn't automatically come about once you've overthrown an unjust system; in fact, that's exactly when the hard part really starts.

It's at that point that one's virtues are really called upon; it is after the Tyrant has been overthrown that one needs most to have hope that things will turn out better in the long run, wisdom to think deeply and plan the best methods, mercy towards one's opponents so as to not waste time, effort or worse, human life itself in pointless factional squabbles; and most of all the spirit of love, that one always remembers the ideal towards which we strive, the achievement of material sufficiency and spiritual fulfillment for all citizens.

Sincerely, Hector Dauphin-Gloire montonero22@hotmail.com Environmental Technician