Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Volume 2, Number 10 April 14 - 20, 2002 Quezon City, Philippines |
Coup in Venezuela: An Eyewitness Account By Gregory Wilpert April 12, 2002
Back to Alternative Reader Index The orchestration of
the coup was impeccable and, in all likelihood, planned a long time ago. Hugo
Chavez, the fascist communist dictator of Venezuela could not stand the truth
and thus censored the media relentlessly. For his own personal gain and that of
his henchmen (and henchwomen, since his cabinet had more women than any previous
Venezuelan government's), he drove the country to the brink of economic ruin. In
the end he proceeded to murder those who opposed him. So as to reestablish
democracy, liberty, justice, and prosperity in Venezuela and so as to avoid more
bloodshed, the chamber of commerce, the union federation, the church, the media,
and the management of Venezuela's oil company, in short: civil society and the
military decided that enough is enough-that Chavez had his chance and that his
experiment of a "peaceful democratic Bolivarian revolution" had to
come to an immediate end. This is, of course,
the version of events that the officials now in charge and thus also of the
media, would like everyone to believe. So what really happened? Of course I
don't know, but I'll try to represent the facts as I witnessed them. First of all, the
military is saying that the main reason for the coup is what happened today,
April 11. "Civil society," as the opposition here refers to itself,
organized a massive demonstration of perhaps 100,000 to 200,000 people to march
to the headquarters of Venezuela's oil company, PDVSA, in defense of its fired
management. The day leading up to the march all private television stations
broadcast advertisements for the demonstration, approximately once every ten
minutes. It was a successful march, peaceful, and without government
interference of any kind, even though the march illegally blocked the entire
freeway, which is Caracas' main artery of transportation, for several hours. Supposedly at the
spur of the moment, the organizers decided to re-route the march to Miraflores,
the president's office building, so as to confront the pro-government
demonstration, which was called in the last minute. About 5,000
Chavez-supporters had gathered there by the time the anti-government
demonstrators got there. In-between the two demonstrations were the city police,
under the control of the oppositional mayor of Caracas, and the National Guard,
under control of the president. All sides claim that they were there peacefully
and did not want to provoke anyone. I got there just when the opposition
demonstration and the National Guard began fighting each other. Who started the
fight, which involved mostly stones and tear gas, is, as is so often the case in
such situations, nearly impossible to tell. A little later, shots were fired
into the crowds and I clearly saw that there were three parties involved in the
shooting, the city police, Chavez supporters, and snipers from buildings above.
Again, who shot first has become a moot and probably impossible to resolve
question. At least ten people were killed and nearly 100 wounded in this gun
battle-almost all of them demonstrators. One of the
Television stations managed to film one of the three sides in this battle and
broadcast the footage over and over again, making it look like the only ones
shooting were Chavez supporters from within the demonstration at people beyond
the view of the camera. The media over and over again showed the footage of the
Chavez supporters and implied that they were shooting at an unarmed crowd. As it
turns out, and as will probably never be reported by the media, most of the dead
are Chavez supporters. Also, as will probably never be told, the snipers were
members of an extreme opposition party, known as Bandera Roja. These last two
facts, crucial as they are, will not be known because they do not fit with the
new mythology, which is that Chavez armed and then ordered his supporters to
shoot at the opposition demonstration. Perhaps my information is incorrect, but
what is certain is that the local media here will never bother to investigate
this information. And the international media will probably simply ape what the
local media reports (which they are already doing). Chavez' biggest and
perhaps only mistake of the day, which provided the last remaining proof his
opposition needed for his anti-democratic credentials, was to order the
black-out of the private television stations. They had been broadcasting the
confrontations all afternoon and Chavez argued that these broadcasts were
exacerbating the situation and should, in the name of public safety, be
temporarily shut-down. Now, all of
"civil society," the media, and the military are saying that Chavez
has to go because he turned against his own people. Aside from the lie this is,
what is conveniently forgotten are all of the achievements of the Chavez
administration: a new democratic constitution which broke the power monopoly of
the two hopelessly corrupt and discredited main parties and put Venezuela at the
forefront in terms of progressive constitutions; introduced fundamental land
reform; financed numerous progressive ecological community development projects;
cracked-down on corruption; promoted educational reform which schooled over 1
million children for the first time and doubled investment in education;
regulated the informal economy so as to reduce the insecurity of the poor;
achieved a fairer price for oil through OPEC and which significantly increased
government income; internationally campaigned tirelessly against neo-liberalism;
reduced official unemployment from 18% to 13%; introduced a large-scale
micro-credit program for the poor and for women; reformed the tax system which
dramatically reduced tax evasion and increased government revenue; lowered
infant mortality from 21% to 17%; tripled literacy courses; modernized the legal
system, etc., etc. Chavez' opposition,
which primarily consisted of Venezuela's old guard in the media, the union
federation, the business sector, the church, and the traditionally conservative
military, never cared about any of these achievements. Instead, they took
advantage of their media monopoly to turn public opinion against him and managed
to turn his biggest liability, his autocratic and inflammatory style, against
him. Progressive civil society had either been silenced or demonized as violent
Chavez fanatics. At this point, it is
impossible to know what will happen to Chavez' "Bolivarian
Revolution"-whether it will be completely abandoned and whether things will
return to Venezuela's 40-year tradition of patronage, corruption, and rentierism
for the rich. What one can say without a doubt, is that by abandoning
constitutional democracy, no matter how unpopular and supposedly inept the
elected president, Venezuela's ruling class and its military show just how
politically immature they are and deal a tremendous blow to political culture
throughout Latin America, just as the coup against Salvador Allende did in 1973.
This coup shows once again that democracy in Latin America is a matter of ruling
class preference, not a matter of law. If the United States
and the democratic international community have the courage to practice what
they preach, then they should not recognize this new government. Democrats
around the world should pressure their governments to deny recognition to
Venezuela's new military junta or any president they happen to choose. According
to the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), this would mean
expelling Venezuela from the OAS, as a U.S. state department official recently
threatened to do. Please call the U.S. state department or your foreign ministry
and tell them to withdraw their ambassadors from Venezuela.
Bulatlat.com Gregory
Wilpert lives in Caracas, is a former U.S. Fulbright scholar in Venezuela, and
is currently doing independent research on the sociology of development. He can
be reached at: Wilpert@cantv.net We want to know what you think of this article.
|