Venezuela’s presidential recall referendum last Sunday is one event among many in what has been a turbulent period for this oil-rich country.
Since the election of President Hugo Chavez in 1998 there have been extensive constitutional amendments, an aborted coup and a national strike that exacerbated an already crippled economy.
This recall vote signalled, at least, a departure from the illegality of the past attempts at change. Whether it ushers in a period of peace, prosperity and democracy for the country remains to be seen.
The French philosopher, Michel Foucalt, said that what is true depends on who controls discourse. In Venezuela, finding truth is a most complex and troublesome task, since half the discursive means belong to the state and half to the private sector. Marx would be proud. There are no third ways here. Just a conflict between the private and the public. This conflict has manifested in a country that is pathologically polarised.
Chavez himself is a particularly polarising figure and has failed to unite the country in a national effort of growth and poverty reduction.
He fought this election on a number of fronts. He went on an oil- induced spending spree on the amazing social programmes his government has instituted. The poll was framed negatively as a battle between Venezuela and United States President George W Bush, and between the people and ”el Diablo”, the devilish opposition.
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of voters came out in support of the government’s efforts to provide literacy programmes, cheap food, skills development and other social programmes. Voters did not trust the opposition to retain these. They did not vote for the continuation of divisions in the country, which they regard as counter-productive to economic recovery and job creation.
Chavez won this referendum. There is no doubt about that. More people voted to revitalise his mandate than have ever supported any other president (58%). It was the highest ever turnout in a national election in Venezuela (61% of registered voters).
Chavez’s populist connection with the people and the fortuitous recovery of the oil price to a whopping $45 a barrel made this a difficult election for an incumbent to lose. Additionally, however, the opposition shamefully lost this election, not winning many more votes than the numbers who signed, inducing the referendum in the first place.
There are broad churches and then there is the Venezuelan opposition. It is so broad that it cannot even be said to constitute a church. It includes unreconstructed coup leaders, right-wingers, socialists, new democrats, ideologist power seekers, social movements, a rainbow array of disparate views coming together to achieve one aim: the unity of Venezuelans. But this unity could not be shown to exist even among themselves.
The truth is that for this referendum to be the culmination of a period of fracturing and not just another event in its continuum, the challenge for Chavistas post this referendum is to make sure that these voters are included in a national effort for change, unity and reconciliation. The president’s recent conciliatory manoeuvres register a real effort in this regard.
And as for the opposition, they need to embrace the truth about Chavez’s popularity with the people and work with him rather than against him, in the interests of all Venezuelans.
International markets too breathed a collective sigh of relief. For them, the Chavez victory represents the important stability variable that they so enjoy for investment purposes. The opposition should acknowledge that too.
Melissa Levin is a senior analyst at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which has conducted a dozen polls in Venezuela over the past year-and-a-half for RCTV, a private Venezuelan broadcaster. These views are her own