Ten Years After “Bolivarian Revolution,” Term Limits Ended for Chavez


On February 2nd, Hugo Chavez celebrated 10 years as president of Venezuela. Less than two weeks later, Venezuelans voted 54 percent to 46 percent, allowing him to run for the leading post indefinitely. “This is is historic day,” Chavez told a crowd in Caracas.

Chavez, a self-styled socialist, first came into the spotlight in 1992 after he launched a botched coup. He was elected in December of 1998 with a populist program: one which over the past ten years has become in some regards bolder. In April of 2002, a U.S. condoned coup was launched against Chavez. Due largely to his widespread support, both in the military and amongst the masses, it was unsuccessful. Since then, he has become one the most vocal and widely broadcasted critics of U.S. foreign policy.

During the past ten years, Chavez’s leadership has coincided with marked improvements in Venezuelan society, particularly in the areas of food security, literacy and community control. These improvements have come largely at the expense of imperialism: both the First World and its lackeys inside Venezuela. This latter group makes up Chavez’s greatest domestic opposition.

Outside of Venezuela, Chavez has formed close ties with other South American leaders towards the end of decreasing U.S. domination in the region. At one point he called Columbia, the region’s largest recipient of U.S. military aid, the “Israel of Latin America.” Around the world, Chavez has made high-profile arms deals with Russia and signed social and economic development contracts with Iran. Responding to the latest attack on Gaza, Venezuela along with Bolivia broke official diplomatic ties with Israel and expelled their ambassadors.

Speaking after his most recent victory, Chavez stated that Venezuelans voted “for socialism [and] for revolution.” A continuation of the “Socialism in the 21st Century” theme that Chavez has increasingly stressed, how exactly such rhetoric will translate into the future remains unclear.

“Revolution” and “socialism” connotate change. Revolution has been called the overthrow of one class by another. Both imply the remaking of society into one with inequality and division, without classes or a state. Thus, when Chavez says “revolution” and “socialism” to describe his leadership and Venezuelan society, our appraisal of these claims should be based on the standard of ‘what direction society is moving.’ Our analysis is also global. The struggle inside Venezuela should be considered in the context of the overall global struggle against imperialism and for a new world.

There are criticisms of Chavez to be made. Internationally, following his referendum victory, Chavez hinted at a rapprochement with the United States. Barack Obama, during his campaign, included Chavez in this list of controversial leaders whom he would “sit down with.” Additionally, while forming an alliance with Russia may to some degree counter U.S. power globally, such is hardly a revolutionary strategy for the world’s oppressed masses. More disturbing, Chavez has stated that “guerrilla war is history;” a slap to the face for those directly resisting imperialism, and beating it, through guerrilla warfare.

Chavez has also been criticized for his top down approach. Such criticism is premature, especially from those outside of Venezuelan society. Authoritarianism on the part of the Chavez administration has obviously been not all bad. Notably, it has occurred in conjunction with the mass mobilization of Venezuela’s poorest and has helped Venezuelan society make leaped and bounds. As many Venezuelans think, Venezuela needs ten more years of Chavez for “Socialism in the 21st Century” to be become a reality. Moreover, such ‘leftist’ criticisms coming from Westerns, regardless of their intention, mirror and buttress those coming from the U.S. State Department. Insofar as authoritarianism has limitations and its existence will leave a mark on Venezuelan society, it is something the the Venezuelan masses will eventually have to deal with.

In all, Chavez is a nebulous figure. It is clear that his administration is a major pole in global anti-imperialism, though his opposition is at times wavering. Inside Venezuela he has presided over clear social transformation while the methods and manners by which this has been accomplished have their own flaws and are simultaneously laying the foundations for the creation of new divisions. In the end however, the fate of Venezuela- and the world- lies not with leaders but with the masses themselves. Theirs is a struggle that is far from over. Now that Chavez has been given the opportunity to lead the country indefinitely, the question remains what his relation to this continuing struggle will be.



Filed under News and Analysis

2 responses to “Ten Years After “Bolivarian Revolution,” Term Limits Ended for Chavez

  1. I want to thank u for posting this analysis of chavez and the bolivarian revolution. as a maoist third-worldist I’ve been struggling to come to terms with this 21st Century Socialism. on the one hand I think that chavez is implementing policies that are moving venezuela towards socialism, via communes, dual power, etc. on the other hand I am attentive to the criticisms raised by MTW comrades who point out chavez petty bourgeois tendencies. although I can’t say chavez is a scientific socialist, I do think that he has brought class war increasingly to the forefront in venezuela, and I think that he will become more of a marxist as the struggle deepens. but in any case, I want to thank u for this scientific analysis… its a good start. recent developments in latin america give me much hope.

  2. Seansky

    This is actually one of the things I find most objectionable about Chavez’s rule.

    Venezuela doesn’t need a life-long ruler. There’s got to be at least one other man in the country who Chavez has as a friend, and who he could be bringing up and grooming for his party’s next candidate for office. Term limits are a good thing. There needs to be a tradition of rotation of the office.

    Even if the elections are entirely fair, it looks bad. Take a look at the countless dictators and undemocratic regimes which have “won elections” in Latin America like the Samosas, Peron, the PRI, etc… which saw the same person or the same party “elected” over and over. It makes the country too used to strong-man rule for life. It makes the transition to a real dictator, even a right-wing dictator, even easier once Chavez is gone.

    Otherwise, I only have a few complaints with Chavez.

    1. The fact that the poverty situation is not really improving very quickly.

    2. Using the international political theatrics and symbolic words and actions as a distraction from domestic issues, and international solutions to various issues.

    3. Environmentally poor record of his regime.

    4. Continued corruption, especially with the police.

    5. Slow transfer of power to local self-determining collectives. Something like that has been set up in some areas, but they are basically powerless, from what I understand.

    Other than that, I think he’s pretty much awesome…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s