Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, made
an enduring mark on the short history of Democratic Socialism. From 1999-2013, Chavez opened a new chapter
for left politics. His tragic death, due to cancer, has been mourned by
progressive forces all over the world and his legacy has been defended from the
outright propagandistic distortions of the Western media. In a world increasingly
subject to the tyranny of transnational capitalist power, Chavez dared to
confront neoliberal financialised capitalism with a ‘21st Century
socialism’. This Bolivarian project was anti-imperialist, unstinting in its use
of democracy against capitalism (not just electoral democracy and democratic rights, but also neighbourhood
councils in Barrios or urban slums, worker run factories, solidarity economy cooperatives
and direct democratic action in the streets) and about state intervention in
the economy. There were both redistributive and transformative elements to the
Bolivarian Revolution. However, this was not without challenges and neither was
it free of mistakes.
Moreover, Chavez was not the first in Latin
America to challenge capitalism in this way. Salvador Allende, President of
Chile, from 1970-73 did the same. Allende confronted capitalism in the midst of
the Cold War and courageously experimented with a peaceful and democratic path
to socialism. On September 11, 1973, Allende’s democratically elected
government was overthrown in a CIA sponsored military coup and he killed
himself before being captured by fascist soldiers. Allende’s democratic
socialism was replaced with the first brutal experiment of neoliberal market
adjustment, under a fascist military dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet.
This ruthless General was a close ally of Reagan and Thatcher, crucial Western
leaders championing neoliberalism ( a class project of transnational capital) in
the heartlands of capitalism in the 1980s.
Both the Democratic Socialisms, of Chavez
and Allende, shared certain common challenges. While they both did not have
absolute majorities in their parliaments, both attempted to use state power to
initiate radical reforms from above, based on the democratic mandates achieved.
These state led projects, from above, threw up challenges of bureaucratisation
and corruption. Another challenge shared was the resource base and dependency
of their countries economies. Chavez was dependent on rents earned from oil,
Allende depended on copper mines. However, both needed to use the wealth
created by these commodities to manage international trade and ensure redistribution. These resource dependencies
made their Democratic Socialisms vulnerable to commodity price changes,
sabotage and even right wing worker strikes.
In the process of deepening social
transformation both were forced to mobilise a democratic bloc of social forces
against a pro-capitalist and imperialist
bloc of domestic forces bent on blocking change. This deeply polarised their
societies. Moreover, both faced imperialist destabilisation and US sponsored
opposition. Allende tried to ensure this
did not escalate into civil war and
maintained a principled commitment to legality and constitutional democracy. At
the same time, the democratic left in Chile rallied to late to build and
institutionalise peoples power in defense of their democratic revolution.
Chavez on the other hand ensured early on and through constitutional reform
that popular power was entrenched in driving democratic transformation from
below. This proved to be a crucial
defense against the US sponsored military coup in 2002.
A democratic path to socialism is not an
easy road, but neither is it impossible. Actually, it is the only way forward
for the left in the 21st Century.
Allende and Chavez have given us valuable historical experience to learn
from.
First, building, institutionalising and
deepening peoples power has to come before electoral power. Electoral and state
power must merely strengthen whats already happening from below. In this
context the solidarity economy, community owned renewable energy, localised
food sovereignty, participatory budgeting in communities, local community
controlled media, democratically managed schools, community policing forums and
so on, become important. This means the state must be embedded or
surrounded by peoples power to ensure it can be held accountable, prevent
corruption and can also be defended against imperialist destabilisation. Even
losing electoral power or even not having it does not stop such a project from continuing from
below. More democracy, not less is the key! This also means grass roots
collective leadership drives and coordinates change with left forces in the
state.
Second, we live in an age in which capital
is given policy concessions, enabling conditions to make super profits and
power to lead. This has led to obscene wealth for the few, a crisis ridden
world and unviable societies. Patrice Motsepe, Cyril Ramaphosa, for example,
are part of this super-rich sometimes called ‘billionaires’ or ‘plutocrats’.
Their wealth is the result of the inequality of the majority. This has to end, while appreciating the
future does not lie with the rich but with workers, the poor and the middle
class. It is time to turn popular power against these elites and ensure popular
classes lead society. This means the impulse for transformation, anchored
below, must form the basis for a new symbolic politics of alternatives for
society and which needs to be presented to
the country. These actual experiences of advancing alternatives have to be the
content for a national dialogue for unity and advancing the interests of all
South Africans. Put differently, national unity has to be actively promoted on
the terms of workers and the poor as the basis to call for capital and the rich
to make sacrifices. For example, capital must be blocked from making profits in
renewable energy so that feed in tariffs can be put in place to enable poor
households to benefit from renewable energy generation and for community owned
renewable energy to come to the fore. The ‘sacrifice’ of capital means society
benefits, particularly the workers, the poor and the middle class. Another
example will be public transport: capital out, the state in to ensure all of
South Africa benefits.
Third, besides grounding socialist change
in radical democracy, pluralism and ethical values there is a need to deal with
the challenge of imperialism differently. Instead of confronting imperialism,
in the context of a unipolar world order, the redistribution of power going on
in the world today holds out the prospect for a post-hegemonic world in which
multiple centres of power co-exist. This requires a new transformative
regionalisation, strategic state alliances, strengthening of multi-lateralism
and transnational solidarity across global civil society.
Finally, it is important to have a
democratic plan to move beyond commodity
dependent economies. In the case of South Africa we have to advance a
transition beyond a carbon based economy, dependent on the minerals energy
complex, and which is contributing to green house gases and global warming. Human
induced climate change will effect workers,
the poor and the middle class the most.
In this context, Democratic Socialism has to be a Democratic
Eco-Socialism in the 21st Century!
