The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was a favorite whipping boy of the Bush administration and of much of the U.S. media. He was excoriated for “repressing press freedom,” in spite of the fact that Venezuela’s thriving private media were, generally, explicitly and stridently against him; he was also often characterized in the United States as a dictator, in spite of being elected repeatedly by large majorities. More favorable narratives showed how his “Bolivarian Revolution” reduced poverty and increased popular participation in Venezuela.
George Ciccariello-Maher’s “We Created Chávez,” however, looks at the Bolivarian Revolution not from the top — how Chávez changed Venezuela — but from the viewpoint of the political activists who, through decades of organizing and struggle, laid the groundwork for Chávez’ electoral victories, saved his presidency when he was briefly overthrown in a military coup, formulated most of his policies and consistently pushed him to the left during his tenure. The strength of the popular movement made him an exceptional figure among even progressive Latin American presidents, who generally have found it necessary to make significant accommodations with the rich, military leaders or more developed nations to stay in office.
Starting with the 1958 uprising that overthrew dictator Marcos Perez Jiménez, Ciccariello-Maher shows how the resulting elite-controlled democracy explicitly excluded parties that advocated for the poor and working class. It wasn’t long before the government violently repressed new strikes and demonstrations. Many of the activists who had participated in the 1958 uprising decided that guerilla war was the only alternative and were eventually repressed, co-opted or defeated.
At the same time, changes in Venezuela, particularly mass migration to the capital Caracas, created slums that, with the help of these same activists, began to organize for “self-defense” both against the drug trade and the heavy hand of the police, creating virtually autonomous neighborhoods within the capital. These communities of the poor and marginalized became crucial bases of support for the organizing that eventually led to Chávez’ election.
Reading “We Created Chávez” reminds one that there is a political discourse that has almost disappeared in the U.S., where progressives have been in a defensive posture for the past 35 years. That the legitimacy of “democracy” should be measured not just by the outcomes of elections, but by the degree to which it actually serves the people; that effective community organizing may mean resistance against both drug dealers and a corrupt, repressive government; and that even a progressive leader in office needs to be constantly pushed by mass mobilizations independent of any party structure — all are important ideas that have nearly vanished from our own political discourse.
Chávez, as Ciccariello-Maher describes him, was not in the process of becoming a dictator during his tenure, as the U.S. government would have it, but rather was a leader whose popular support had allowed him to occupy a strategic position for the movement. He was forced to compromise with more conservative elements of the government, especially the bureaucracy and elements of the military. At the same time, the popular movements pushed him into more radical positions. Ironically, it was his response to these popular demands — not his compromises with the state bureaucracy — that earned him so much opprobrium in the U.S.
After giving a general history of the Bolivarian movement, Ciccariello-Maher writes about some of the main elements of the popular movements, spending a chapter each on women, peasants, people of color, unions and the marginal workers in the “informal” sector. This last group — street vendors, casual laborers, drivers and the like — are among the revolution’s most militant supporters. While this sectional approach does ensure that often neglected groups have their contributions recognized, it also breaks up the narrative and, because there’s no timeline or glossary to help navigate through an alphabet soup of acronyms and events, may be confusing to readers unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics. Sometimes it seems to become a catalogue of names and positions, rather than an analysis of history.
Although the book has a lively style, Ciccariello-Maher is an academic Marxist and assumes a certain degree of familiarity with radical theory, to the degree that readers who aren’t familiar with terms like “war of position” and “war of maneuver” may also feel lost. In this sense, the book could greatly benefit from a glossary that includes such theoretical terms. It may also bother some readers that the author is an unapologetic partisan of revolution and makes no bones about his belief that there’s a necessity for people to defend themselves, with violence if necessary, against landlords, thugs and a repressive government.
However, the book is a fascinating look into Venezuelan politics and clearly shows how it was the strength of the mass movement that created Hugo Chávez, not the other way around. Written before Chávez’ death, the author doesn’t directly address the question of what will happen without him; however, the degree of popular mobilization he describes is reassurance that the revolution will continue.