Wednesday, 24 October 2007

Venezuela and Crime - The cynical attitude of the opposition on crime

This is the second post in my Venezuela and Crime series, this piece is one I found on the CWI website www.socialistworld.net whilst searching for something else, but it also forms an interesting second introduction to the discussion on some of the aspects i didn't manage to cover in the previous post which can be found here -Venezuela and Crime - A Preliminary Discussion.

Celso Calfullan, CIT (CWI), Caracas, 8 April 2006
The horrendous assassination of three people in Caracas has been used by the opposition to Hugo Chavez as an excuse to start an offensive against the government. After the brutal murder of the Faddoul brothers and their driver by criminals, the opposition parties called demonstrations and protests. Although we cannot but be horrified by the terrible crime and that we all have the duty to denounce such acts and demand justice for the Faddoul brothers, we cannot but feel indignation for the political games the opposition is trying to play in exploiting this situation.

The anti-Chavez opposition warns about ‘social disintegration’ taking place in Venezuela and accuses the government of incompetence when it comes to guaranteeing the safety of its citizens. The opposition says the government is responsible for creating conditions in which criminals can act with impunity.

We have to say that it is good that the opposition finally recognises the existing social disintegration in Venezuela, especially since this is one of the lingering effects of their past political rule. A rule in the service of the Venezuelan employers aimed at intensifying the exploitation of the working class and poor. For decades, the latter suffered hunger, lack of adequate housing and lack of health care. Isn’t this violence, also? Everyday, children and young people die in the most downtrodden areas of this country; unfortunately, in the majority of cases, their plight does not make the pages of the newspapers.

200 peasants killed
Less than a week ago, organisations of the poor peasants and the landless organised held a march in Caracas denouncing the murder of more than 200 peasant leaders by death squads in the service of the big landowners. Unfortunately, they too die an anonymous death. From reading the press, you would not learn about the daily suffering in the countryside. This press who now wails like mad dogs, with the aim to make political capital for the opposition out of the latest crime wave.

Virgini Rivera, the Vice President of COPEI (a Christian democratic opposition party), accused the government of dismantling the police forces during the last 7 years of its rule. This accusation follows on from rumours that the kidnappers and killers of the Faddoul brothers were police officers or dressed up as police officers. This accusation comes from a party, which, in the past, had complete control over the police forces and used them to serve the direct interests of the Venezuelan ruling class. There are many stories to tell about the police being used to repress working class movements or even to assassinate leaders of the left or whatever other opposition movement which threatened their interests. Many of the leading officers in the police force stayed in their posts when Chavez came to power. We would only have to scratch at the surface of the thin layer of paint that covers up their unsavoury past as hired killers against the people.

Enrique Capriles, mayor of Baruta and a leading opposition figure, was even more outspoken about the killings of the Faddoul brothers. He hoped the deaths would "Move the consciousness of the military" so that they would withdraw their support for the government.

What could our friend Capriles be talking about? Another military coup? Let us remember that it took less than 24 hours during the last failed coup for members of the opposition to send out lists with the names of political, trade union, and community activists marked out to receive ‘special attention’.

A national leader of Accion Democratica (a social democratic party), Nelson Lara, claimed in the press that President Chavez is indirectly responsible for the 12,000 assassinations which occur yearly in Venezuela. Nelson Lara says it is Chavez who built a state associated with crime, a state which calls on criminals to enter politics. Maybe Nelson is referring to his old political allies who have now left Accion Democratica to take up seats on the government benches in the parliament.

Another opposition member, Roberto Smith, who represents an opposition party with more letters in the acronym than actual members, claims "The citizens have lost confidence in the institutions, fundamentally in the security services".

He forgets that Chavez won the presidential elections precisely because the majority of the people lost confidence in the political institutions, including the political parties of the opposition. And that part of the middle class voted for Chavez because they thought a man with a military background would put a stop to chaos, crime, and corruption.

We cannot claim, however, that the Chavez government carries no responsibility at all for the high level of crime and violence. This arises mainly as a result of its desire to look for compromise with the ruling class, who are primarily to blame for the miserable and insecure situation in the country.

Working class must lead struggle against crime
Chavez speaks of revolution and socialism but, unfortunately, does nothing to carry out a concrete socialist programme, which can end capitalism and all its vices. Regrettably, social insecurity, misery, poverty wages, and, of course, the crime these things breed, continue to exist at intolerable levels for the population. The insecurity in working class neighbourhoods is 100 times worse than it is for the ruling and higher middle class who live in gated communities, and who are surrounded by body guards.

The struggle against crime must be organised and headed by the working class and the masses. We cannot put our trust in the police, as was proven again by the latest experiences. For the masses to defend their neighbourhoods against crime it is necessary to create self-defence committees, including, where necessary, creating neighbourhood militias, used in the fight against insecurity, drug dealing, and crime. This can be carried out as an immediate measure on the condition that the committees and militias are democratically elected and under the control of the neighbourhoods. The local police force needs to come under the democratic control of the local community. This would be a first step towards its replacement with a popular security force, elected and controlled by the local communities and organisations of the working class.

4 comments:

David Duff said...

Is it a crime, do you think, to ram through new legislation allowing you to rule a country for life?

Renegade Eye said...

David: It would be a crime to ram through new legislation allowing you to rule the country for life. Luckily it's not happening in Venezuela. Abolishing term limits is a progressive reform.

In the US, we have term limits, because the Republicans feared FDR would be president for life.

Criminologist: I support Chavez, which is different than endorsing him. To say he did nothing to better the lives of the poor is reactionary.

I agree crime is an important issue Chavez should address. Your position denies the revolutionary upsurge that is occuring. Do you tell your comrades in Venezuela, to be outside the revolution?

Leftwing Criminologist said...

hi ren, i think you're missing the point of the article. What we say about venezuela is that chavez is not going far enough in terms of decisively breaking with capitalism, although chavez has made a start on alleviating some of the problems, such as illiteracy, and this should be supported.
what i'd argue for is the masses to organise themselves around their own class socialist programme, including nationalising the commanding heights of the economy, chavez does not go this far (there have been some limited nationalisations but not on the scale required). chavez should be supported so long as what he is doing is in the interests of the masses, but one man does not make a revolution.

Leftwing Criminologist said...

hi ren, i think you're missing the point of the article. What we say about venezuela is that chavez is not going far enough in terms of decisively breaking with capitalism, although chavez has made a start on alleviating some of the problems, such as illiteracy, and this should be supported.
what i'd argue for is the masses to organise themselves around their own class socialist programme, including nationalising the commanding heights of the economy, chavez does not go this far (there have been some limited nationalisations but not on the scale required). chavez should be supported so long as what he is doing is in the interests of the masses, but one man does not make a revolution.