From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CAUSA R: Venezuela's Alternative Left
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:34:13 GMT

/** reg.samerica: 326.0 **/
** Topic: Venezuela's Alternative Left **
** Written  1:12 pm  Dec 24, 1992 by dhellinger in cdp:reg.samerica **
Venezuela's Alternative Left
Interview by Daniel Hellinger
 
      Founded twenty years ago after the defeat of the leftist 
guerrilla movement in Venezuela, the CAUSA R political party 
embarked a strategy of organizing workers in the new industrial 
pole of in Ciudad Guayana, in eastern the eastern state of Bolivar. 
The CAUSA eschewed the democratic centralist form of organization
of all other Venezuelan political parties, including the Movimiento
al Socialismo, the largest leftist party.  The party has held
control since 1974 of the union in the giant, state owned
Siderurgico de Orinoco (SIDOR) steel mill, despite massive firings
and the illegal dismissal of the union's leader, Andres Velasquez. 
In the 1988 elections, the CAUSA burst out of its regional enclave
and claimed fourth place, behind MAS, in the 1988 congressional
elections.  Then in 1989, former steel worker Andres Velasquez
stunned the political establishment by winning the governorship in
the State of Bolivar, formerly a stronghold of Accion Democratica
[AD], the dominant party in Venezuelan politics for the past 50
years.
 
     In the December 1992 elections, held just after a bloody,
abortive coup, Velasquez won re-election with over 70 percent of
the vote.  Despite widespread reports of fraud, the party won
control of both the mayoralty and city council of Caracas.
 
This interview with Pablo Medina, Secretary General of the party,
and Ali Rodriguez, part of CAUSA congressional delegation, took
place in Caracas on July 16, 1990.  Although it took place over two
and one half years, it provides a look into the internal politics
and philosophy of Venezuela's suddenly powerful leftist movement.
 
DH:  You define CAUSA R as a party of "radical democracy."  Why do
you not define yourselves as a "revolutionary" or "socialist"
party?
 
AR: Our reflections on Venezuelan history led us to conclude that
a socialist revolution is in no way viable at present, but that
indeed it is realistic to propose a very radical, profoundly
democratic transformation, one that makes a reality of the phrase,
"Of the people, by the people, and for the people."  This is very
far from the actual state of affairs in Venezuela because democracy
is reduced to political rights, the right to vote and so called
"freedom of speech."  But when one studies how these rights are
actually implemented, there really is no way of exercising them
effectively.
 
DH: The Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) is probably the best known
of the Venezuelan leftist parties.  How is CAUSA R different from
MAS?
 
AR: We could point to several distinctions, but I think that one
defines all of the others.  CAUSA R puts its prime emphasis on the
working class, and not only in unions but in social organizations.
Departing from this thesis we put more emphasis on developing
leaders through social struggles.  Our emphasis is not on
increasing the number of votes or the number of parliamentary
representatives.  We continue to try to accomplish this too, but it
is not our principal work.  As is evident, the MAS practices a
politics that emphasizes votes, and it has lost its character as a
social party.
 
DH: Are there other parties in Latin America to which CAUSA R can
be compared -- to the Workers Party (PT) of Brazil, for example?
 
AR: There are certain differences that are determined in each
country by specific circumstances that require parties to organize
themselves for different types of work.  CAUSA R has developed in
a relatively democratic climate compared to the PT, which was born
in a struggle against a dictatorship.  But there is a resemblance
among both of our parties in the emphasis on worker democracy, in
the idea that the workers ought to govern.  Just recently we
received an invitation to an event organized by the PT in Brazil,
and we intend to participate actively.
 
DH: As CAUSA R expands, is there not a danger of opportunists
joining?
 
PM: Yes, and this has been a problem, but we do have mechanisms
to limit it.  CAUSA R functions by taskforces.   We have many of
the same kinds of party offices as other parties, but open meetings
are held to discuss problems and from this process emerge leaders.
 
Someone who arrives at the last minute is not allowed to run. 
There are norms of behavior that make it less likely that an
opportunist would seek us out.  For example, the fees that our
union officials receive as a result of negotiating a contract do
not go to the officers but to the union treasury.  All 700,000
bolivars ($14,000) that our Deputies received (the state subsidy to
parties) was turned over to Matanceros (the Guayana workers
movement) for their struggle.
 
We deliberately avoid using the CAUSA R symbol to identify our
slates in union elections.  Candidates are chosen after a series of
assemblies have been held in which the workers are invited to
discuss the problems they face and to develop a program for the
union.  Our goals change, they are not fixed in advance.  After
several of these kinds of meetings, natural leaders begin to
emerge, and they usually become candidates.  Many times, these
leaders join Causa R, but we do not insist on this and our slates
are formed without respect to party affiliation.  Our organization
is dynamic and developing and not static.
 
DH: Some say that your success can be attributed to your rejection
of alliances with other parties.
 
PM: This is a matter of suitability, not principle.  In the past
we have usually avoided alliances to make it clear to the workers
that our candidates were workers' candidates.  I have described the
participatory process by which candidates and leaders emerge, and
this is not closed to other parties.
 
DH:  What is the relationship between CAUSA R and the movement for
union democracy, Nuevo Sindicalismo, in Venezuela?
 
 
PM: Nuevo Sindicalismo is a project of CAUSA R, but it is broader
than the CAUSA.  It is based on expansion of democracy to fight
corruption, on honesty, and on political realism.   This last point
is extremely important.  Right now the neoliberal policies of
President Carlos Andres Perez directly contradicts the program of
his own party [Accion Democratica], they even contradict his own
policies from his first administration [1974-78].  His first term
was characterized by nationalization, now he seeks to denationalize
what was built during the petroleum boom.  Many of his plans, like
privatization and participation of foreign capital in basic
industries, conflicts with the Constitution.  At this time, he
prefers political instability in order to dilute the power of his
own party in congress.  He wants decisions to be concentrated at
the executive level so that he can impose unconstitutional acts by
decree.  For this he needs political instability, and we do not
want to play into his hands.
 
DH:  Why do you believe the Perez's policies contradict his own
party's principles?
 
AR: If one reads the original founding documents of Accion
Democratica, from the Plan of Barranquilla written by Romulo
Betancourt in 1931 until the last of his programs [as President] in
1965, one finds that this project revolved around the distribution
of petroleum income.  This was used to develop what we might call
popular capitalism.  Effectively the oil income was directed, as
Betancourt himself put it, toward capitalising human capability,
that is, to improve the quality of life for most Venezuelans in
regard to literacy, health, nutrition, etc.  This entire strategy
of capitalization of the human factor of production, from 1931
until the 1980s -- for example the rise of life expectancy [from
38] to 71 years -- was based on expansion of consumption more than
on increasing production.  Venezuela was privileged with a
relatively high salaries compared to those of other countries of
Latin America.
 
PM: The Eighth National Plan, which embodies the neoliberal
thesis, has changed the entire direction of policy away from
expanding consumption to expanding production, principally for
export.  This requires an enormous adjustment that imposes grave
social costs on the population.
 
DH: Perez says that the economic package required by the IMF is not
an alternative, but the only alternative, given the fall of oil
prices and the inefficiency of the state sector.
 
AR: This is an ideological justification presented to the people,
something not unique to Carlos Andres Perez.  Wherever this thesis
is adopted a similar public relations campaign is undertaken to
convince the people that their is no other way forward.  [However]
the thesis that the private sector is a better manager than the
public sector is false.  SIDOR (the state steel company) renders
major benefits to the state through the taxes that it pays.  The
deficit that SIDOR currently faces is the result of a mistaken
decision when the state undertook [during Perez's first term] to
expand overnight utilizing short term loans.  Now we are paying the
cost.  Also, the majority of firms currently under state control
are formerly private firms that were on the verge of bankruptcy. 
Their stockholders were well compensated when the state     
intervened, leaving the state with a large debt on its hands.  This
is a major problem for the public sector.
 
PM:  We have called for worker participation and measures to
develop "aguas abajas" [production of capital and intermediate
goods for domestic industry] and to combat corruption and
inefficiency.
 
This is the kind of movement and participation we want to encourage
on the national level, and it represents the overall general
approach.  This is our alternative to neoliberalism, . . . one that
will not be supported by big capital, but only by a movement for a
radical kind of democracy on the part of workers, those who really
produce the national wealth.  Our proposal . . . is oriented to all
workers, manual and intellectual, but we have concentrated
principally on the industrial workers because they have developed
a high degree of consciousness about what is happening to the
country.
 
DH: Why did you choose to concentrate fifteen years ago on the
Guayana region?
 
PM:  The steel and other metallurgical industries located in the
industrial zone of Guayana, is very special in this small country.
The industrial development of this area has converted it into a
magnetic pole attracting to it workers from all over the country,
not just from that particular region.  For this reason, what we
have accomplished In Guayana has given us a national projection
because of the links that workers have with their families all over
the country.
 
DH: CAUSA R has proposed that SIDOR contract with the Japanese to
produce certain intermediate goods in chronically short supply. 
How do you reconcile this with opposition to privatization of basic
industries?
 
PM: Although we believe that we should develop our own Venezuelan
technology as much as possible, we are not going to take the absurd
position that we shouldn't take advantage of technologies developed
in other parts of the world.  Through international agreements, we
should acquire those technologies that are needed, but maintaining
certain guarantees of national sovereignty.
 
DH: One of the first things that Velasquez said after being elected
governor was that he intended to run again for president.  Is CAUSA
R becoming electorally oriented?
 
PM: Andres said that the aspiration of the workers was to arrive
 
in Miraflores [the Presidential Palace].  This is made especially
clear in the speech that he made at his inauguration.  Since
becoming governor, from the first day, he has made it a practice to
meet continually with people in factories, neighborhood councils,
with the indigenous population, holding meetings in which people
are encouraged to speak out.  The goal is to expand democratic
participation in order to fight against corruption, which is one of
the principal reasons why people voted for us.
 
We cannot do away with corruption by ourselves.  People must know
that they are free do criticize and denounce corrupt practices.
Although we have to deal with Leopoldo Sucre Figarella [President
of the Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana, which owns SIDOR] in
institutionalized relationships, we have not been afraid to
criticize him directly.  In his presence we have denounced
corruption and also criticized the way that SIDOR and other
enterprises have been managed.
 
DH: CAUSA R has warned workers in Guayana to exercise care in
utilizing the strike in response to the announcement of 3000
dismissals at SIDOR. Would you lead a strike if necessary to
protect these jobs?
 
AD: We believe that a strike can be a very effective weapon but
is a very delicate one.  It is the instrument of last resort that
we should use to defend the workers or accomplish their demands. 
The economic crisis has contributed to increased of unemployment,
stimulating extensive competition among workers for jobs.  So one
can't just freely play the strike card.  In case of the steel
industry, they have announced a reduction of 3000 jobs, but
according to our own investigation this number could amount to 8000
to 9000, which would produce virtual anarchy in the entire state. 
So we are organizing beyond the plant itself.  Workers in other
unions have become more militant.  There is a collective interest
among all of the workers and their families in saving this
enterprise.  This explains why instead of a simple strike we have
resorted to a civic strike (paro civico) in which all sectors of
the society can participate.
 
[Note: The company and the unions reached an accord to allow the
workforce to be reduced, but providing for retraining and a welfare
net for laid-off workers. DH, Dec. 1992]
 
DH: You have developed bases in working class neighborhoods in
western Caracas, yet you have resisted the call of FACUR, the
largest federation of neighborhood associations, for single member
district (uninominal) representation, especially at the municipal
level.  Just about everyone agrees that proportional representation
has failed to keep elected officials responsive to voters because
the electorate has no influence over who appears on the party
slates.
 
AR: In places where popular leaders are already well known to the
people, this reform could have a significant impact, but if the
power of the non-elected forces of this country are not reduced,
uninomalism is a deceptive solution.  The large parties have
resources for enormous campaigns on radio and television and in the
papers, etc.
 
Those more closely linked to social movements do not have access to
these resources and as a consequence cannot hope to compete for
votes.  FACUR carries out some important work, and we share the
desire to eliminate the oligarchy of the parties, but we want to
politicize the population, but depoliticize them.  This means
resisting the oligarchy of the parties and developing a
participatory process in local government similar to what has
developed in the unions.  The idea, then is the "municipalize
democracy," not just democratize municipal government.
 
[Note: In the December 1992 elections, the CAUSA overcame the
disadvantages of uninominal representation to win control of the
Caracas city council]
 
PM: In Caracas with five million people the City Council meets
at noon everyday, but for what purpose?  Likewise with he local
councils that are controlled by the parties.  Mayors hold all the
real power, and the councils do very little.  We propose to change
the process as follows.  We propose that the 27 Juntas Parroquiales
27 in Caracas be elected directly.  These would form in turn elect
a Caracas Council.  The juntas and the new council would have the
power to raise revenues through taxation and would control the
local police.  FACUR is not in agreement with this.  They are more
focused on issues like environmental problems, which are important,
but more reflective of its middle class origins.  FACUR says they
want to "elect," we say that we want to "govern."
 
DH: Now that CAUSA R has won the governorship and made significant
additional advances in the unions, what are plans for the future?
 
AR: Basically to continue practicing the same politics that we
have for many years, but we are seeking a greater national
projection now that we have visible spokesman like Andres
Velasquez, governor of the State of Bolivar.  We want to
incorporate intellectuals and all who are effected by the crisis,
including certain entrepreneurial sectors as well.  We want to
convert this governorship into a model of how things could be done
differently in Venezuela, of how workers and social movements can
participate in government, so that people can see that the
propositions of a radical democracy are relevant to all
citizens of Venezuela.

Daniel Hellinger is Professor of Political Science, Webster    
University, St. Louis, Missouri and author of Venezuela: Tarnished
Democracy (Westview).
 
** End of text from cdp:reg.samerica **

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive