Venezuelan polarisation
Editorial
Stabroek News
December 14, 2002
The crisis in Venezuela continues. While it does not have exact parallels locally, there are some features about it which have resonance here, and there are certainly important lessons to be drawn from it. In particular, there is the intransigence of the two sides engaged in the current confrontation which is threatening the framework of the Venezuelan state. Each has demonized the other, and neither has shown any disposition so far to be pliable in order to avoid a social and political catastrophe.
On the one hand, there is a democratically elected President who believes he is facing that most anti-democratic of actions - a coup; and on the other, there is an opposition which believes that the President has so transgressed democratic norms that he must be forced from office. It also alleges that he has wrecked the economy, and therefore cannot be allowed to continue inflicting damage.
The weapon the opposition has seized on to achieve its end is a general strike which has crippled the oil industry on which the nation depends for the bulk of its export earnings. Even Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez has admitted that the strike which started on December 2, is costing the nation more than US$50M a day in lost export revenues. Many petrol stations are out of fuel, and nervous citizens are engaged in emptying supermarket shelves and withdrawing money from their bank accounts. However, it has to be added that in the poorer areas of Caracas, in particular, where people earn an average of less than US$2 a day, things are much more normal with most shops and businesses remaining open.
Mr Cesar Gaviria, the Organisation of American States (OAS) mediator between the Government of President Hugo Chavez and the disparate elements comprising the opposition, sounded less than optimistic on Wednesday. “I think both sides have to negotiate soon in the next few days,” he was quoted as saying by the BBC, “or we will find increasing demands by the opposition and that may take Venezuela to a confrontation with a high risk of violence.”
One element in the problem making negotiation between Government and opposition difficult, is familiar to us here. The level of rhetoric is so vitriolic, that there is a lot of face on the line. In his weekly harangues on TV and radio, which continue for hours - five hours in the case of last week’s programme - President Chavez castigates the opposition in robust language. “They are obsessed, sick,” he thunders, “they have diabolical, satanic minds.”
Needless to say, the spokesmen for the opposition are also no slouches in the vilification department, labelling the President a dictator, as well as other more florid names. The temperature between the two sides has increased following the shooting of opposition demonstrators last Friday, which killed three and wounded 28. “Chavez, assassin,” shout the opposition demonstrators who appear on the capital’s streets every evening at eight o’clock, banging their pots and pans. The responses from the other side are heard two hours later, when Mr Chavez’s supporters come out with their firecrackers. The Government has denied being involved in the shooting; however, there can be no doubt that it was Chavez’s supporters who were the perpetrators. The opposition has been insisting that the Government has been arming President Chavez’s Bolivarian Circles, although the authorities have denied this.
Another reason for the failure of both sides to compromise is the belief that they can win. A general strike which was shaky at first, is now paralysing the country as a consequence of the participation of PdVSA management. (PdVSA is the nationalised company which runs Venezuela’s oil industry.) As the stoppage causes increasing economic and social dislocation, the opposition gains confidence in the view that President Chavez can be forced to capitulate. Mr Rafael Simon Jimenez, of the National Assembly was quoted by the New York Times on Thursday as saying that both sides were being driven by radical leaders who did not represent the will of most Venezuelans. “Each side is playing a game of chicken,” was how he put it.
The Government for its part is of a mind to crush the strike. It appears to believe that if it can get oil flowing again and the tankers moving, then the opposition would collapse. On Thursday, therefore, the administration gave Mr Ali Rodriguez, the President of PdVSA, special powers to bring oil production on stream again. His first act was to dismiss four of the top managers of the company, including its planning manager, Mr Juan Fernandez. These four in addition to three others had been dismissed once before in April. It was their dismissal which led to the general strike and which in turn triggered the abortive coup. President Chavez had reinstated them as a gesture of reconciliation to the oil industry after the coup had collapsed.
As the employees of PdVSA met following the announcement, however, there was no sign that the dismissals would be more effective in achieving the President’s goal this time around, than they had been the last time. According to the Associated Press, manager after manager rose to denounce the firings, and as of yesterday, the strike in the oil industry still seemed to be fairly solid, despite the loading of two tankers by strike-breakers, one of which discharged its cargo at a domestic refinery.
With the scent of victory in its nostrils, the opposition by Wednesday was upping its demands. One of the opposition negotiators was reported to have said that his side now wanted a referendum on February 2 on a proposal to amend the constitution to allow elections. (Constitutionally speaking, no binding vote on Chavez’s term in office can be held before August, 2003.) In addition, however, they also were demanding the President’s immediate resignation, although they said he could run in the elections.
If Mr Gaviria sounded less than optimistic on Wednesday, he was even more pessimistic, perhaps, on Thursday. Speaking to foreign reporters he said that the Government’s denial of the serious nature of the crisis was impeding negotiations. The New York Times quoted him directly: “They say everyone is working,” he said, “that what we have is sabotage in the oil industry. Because they [the Government and opposition] have such different views of reality, it is very difficult to have an agreement.”
That too has its echoes in Guyana.
