Commentary by the National Executive Committee of FRSO/OSCL

We have now had some days to digest the results of the Venezuelan election, and our committee would like to offer several thoughts as part of the larger movement summation of this experience.

Despite the demonizing of President Chávez and his intentions by the Bush administration, the Venezuelan opposition, and the US corporate media, it is very noteworthy that upon losing, he offered a principled concession. Though Bush, et al., had tried to convince the world that President Chávez was determined to win, legally or illegally, President Chávez stood by his word. Rumors that he was compelled to do so by his military have been unsupported by any facts and sound much more like CIA disinformation campaigns.

For many of us on the Left in the US, if we are to be honest, the lead-up to this election has been a period of very mixed emotions. Though not discussed very publicly, among left and progressive circles in the USA there was a certain uneasiness regarding President Chávez's attempt to remove presidential term limits. Although there were many other components to the constitutional proposal (a fact that is significant when one ponders the calculation of putting all of these together in one yes/no vote), the matter of term limits was the point around which there was probably the most attention, if not concern. Some of the reforms included in order to expand Chávez's socialist agenda were reducing the workday and workweek, ending the autonomy of the central bank, and prohibiting large land estates, to name a few. While most of the Left and progressives vehemently denounced the hypocrisy of those who would condemn President Chávez yet say nothing about the British electoral system that lacks any term limits, this was separate and apart from our deeper feelings about the actual removal of term limits.

There is good reason for the concern regarding term limits, and little of it has to do with the character of President Chávez or, for that matter, the Venezuelan experience. It revolves more around the history of the socialist and national liberation experiments and what has taken place in the absence of term limits. While there are many great leaders who have stayed in power for life, it is also the case that the power of the incumbency is very real. The ability of an individual or group of individuals to remain uncontested because of the position that they continue to occupy has, more often than not, been to the detriment of revolutionary democracy.

When the late leader of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, voluntarily stepped down from office in 1985, this action spoke volumes. Rather than being carried out of office, he chose to leave on his own at the end of his term, albeit after having been in office for decades. Nevertheless, he was asserting that a presidency-for-life was not the practice that should be supported if there is to be a broad-based democracy.

Unfortunately, we in the USA often felt unable to discuss this issue of term limits in the context of the Venezuelan election debate. Part of it was due to the increasing support in the US Left for President Chávez and our desire to not undermine him at a point when the Bush administration was clearly attempting to do so. Yet the absence of debate actually undermines radical and progressive experiments. The enemy will always attempt to subvert the effort of the oppressed to free themselves from the heel of capitalism. This cannot, however, be a rationale for our silence when we have concerns, not to mention when there are circumstances that we adamantly oppose.

Does any of this mean that we should stand in opposition to President Chávez? Nothing could be further from the truth, but it is our guess, in reading between the lines, that the failure of the Chávez constitutional initiatives to pass, along with the relatively low voter turnout, are indeed reflections of unease in Venezuela that President Chávez overreached in this effort. Clearly the mass base was not there for this endeavor. And from accounts that we've seen and heard, this has led to a deep evaluation among the social movements and Chávez supporters of the importance of grassroots mobilization and engagement around the process of building a new society in Venezuela.

In addition to the mass base, the failure of this initiative to pass should raise questions within the leading circles of the Venezuelan United Socialist Party (which President Chávez has initiated) regarding the levels of local organizing and education that are necessary in order to bring into existence the 21st-century socialism that President Chávez espouses. As powerful, charismatic and persuasive as is President Chávez, the revolutionary process needs cadre interacting with the masses, learning from them, and mobilizing them.

The history of progressive and radical mass struggles has a myriad of lessons, but one is the importance of building echelons of new leaders. On a practical level this is key because, as human beings, we are mortal. As the death of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in 1987 demonstrated, placing hopes in one person in the absence of an institutionalized movement, can lead to disaster if that one person is lost to eternity.

Beyond the practical is the issue of the substance of revolutionary democracy. The 21st-century socialism that we should be attempting to build must promote the development of many leaders, as it must promote debate. In this case, the future of the Venezuelan struggle cannot reside alone in President Chávez but must be a reflection of the building of the party that he is sponsoring; the creation of mass, democratic institutions that exert real power; and the promotion of leaders across Venezuela who can move forward even in his absence (and certainly move forward should he choose, God forbid, to move backwards).

We, the NEC of FRSO/OSCL, have been carefully reviewing the analyses that have come forth following the Venezuelan election and will continue to do so. We leave it to those much closer and more intimately connected to the Venezuelan struggle to offer the in-depth, concrete analysis from which we can all learn. Nevertheless, the preceding represents our impressions, concerns, and, indeed, our hopes, for we stand with the people of Venezuela and look forward to the prospect for President Chávez and the Venezuelan United Socialist Party, upon their own period of reflection, to take further steps in continuing the experiment of 21st-century socialism.