Special to Canadian Dimension March 7, 2007

Not long ago, in the face of mounting opposition, George W. Bush’s government of crazed zealots announced a military “surge” in Iraq. An additional 21,000 troops were committed to today’s deepest sinkhole for American Empire, and Bush dared the Democrats to stop him.

For the moment, in the corridors of Washington D.C. at least, Bush’s risky gambit has worked. Non-binding resolutions have been passed, but the Democrat leadership, perhaps predictably, has not pulled the plug on the Iraq war.

Conservative pundits have chortled with glee, and insist this loss of nerve vindicates Republican hardliners.

In the Winter of 1999, I heard similar arguments being used by young conservatives. They were reading the tea leaves after the momentous “Days of Action” movement in Ontario (Canada), when 11 city-wide strikes were waged against the far Right regime led by Mike Harris.

“The problem with the Left”, as one buttoned-down, martini-guzzling conservative explained, “is that it doesn’t have chutzpah.” “Sure, labour leaders can orchestrate large protests, and lefties can sway public opinion a little, but that alone won’t make us back down. In the end, the Left pulled its most powerful punches, and that’s why we won.”

My walk home that night was memorable, largely because there were elements of truth to what I had overheard. When it became clear only a province-wide strike could challenge the ruling conservatives in Ontario, labour leaders had blinked.

When and where, I wondered, would we see radical government with nerve?

Oddly enough, eight years later, the world is witnessing such a government, but not from the Left in el Norte.

Instead, Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution – epitomized by the leadership of President Hugo Chávez – has demonstrated increased momentum in seeing through a dramatic process of social change.

Many progressives are familiar with the outlines of this revolution, and its efforts to channel oil profits towards social programs for Venezuela’s poor majority.

More recently, however, the Bolivarians have embarked on their own “surge”, and it has drawn a flurry of debate.

In the aftermath of a decisive election victory, Chávez asked for (and received) new “enabling laws” that allow him powers to “rule by decree” in eleven policy areas for a period of eighteen months.

Chávez also revoked the operating license of a TV station (that supported a military insurrection against the government), and called for the creation of a mass socialist party.

Bolivarians have justified this surge as necessary for two reasons: first, to address the historical problem of corruption in state institutions, a sclerosis that extends inside Bolivarian ranks; and, secondly, to deepen experiments in “popular democracy”, a move Bolivarians think will empower the grass-roots support that has withstood repeated attempts at subterfuge.

Not surprisingly, today’s Bolivarian surge has led to accusations of dictatorship from Venezuela’s former oil elite, and their propagandists in the mainstream press. They accuse Chávez of “end-running” democratic process, and setting the framework for authoritarian rule.

Of course, as others have explained, these arguments should be taken with a large grain of salt. Proposals to “rule by decree” aren’t unique to Chávez — previous Venezuelan Presidents have used these powers before, albeit for quite different ends.

Article 74 of Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution also proscribes powers to reject “enabling laws” deemed inappropriate by a petition of 5% of the electorate. A successful petition immediately puts any “enabling laws” to a binding national referendum.

This process is far cry from George W. Bush’s infamous “signing statements” (invoked 750 times so far), which grant him the right to veto decisions that don’t fit his interpretation of the US Constitution.

It is equally different from the dictatorial rule of majority governments in Canadian politics, where party discipline often forms a bulwark against any form of dissent.

The real issue in Venezuela are the stated intentions behind today’s Bolivarian surge, which are at odds with the interests of American Empire.

The last time Chávez invoked 49 “enabling laws” (in 2001), the CIA responded by financing and assisting a coup attempt. At the moment, as their imperial adventures worsen, US officials are offering mixed reactions.

More importantly, Bolivarians have also faced concerns from supporters. Gregory Wilpert, among the most respected English-language writers on Venezuela, has worried that the current Bolivarian surge is hasty, too focused on top leadership, and could embolden the opposition.

Others have voiced concern around “ruling by decree”, and worry about a dramatic extension of executive power.

These are legitimate concerns, and time will tell if they have any basis in fact. Without question, a great responsibility rests on the grass-roots ranks of the Bolivarian movement, whose efforts, it is true, have weathered considerable challenges in the past. They must now hold their own leaders accountable as plans for “twenty-first century socialism” unfold.

In the North, those who have awaited a defiant Left government finally have something to follow, but not as voyeurs. Instead, we have a obligation to sort out fact from fiction, and engage with those debating today’s Bolivarian surge.

Whatever the outcome, the Bolivarians are still a beacon for a world fatigued by half-hearted Left movements. They challenge us to follow through on our own radical convictions, and build the revolution at home.

This article was posted on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007 and is filed under Socialism, Venezuela. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.