So-Called ‘Civil Society’ in Post-Chávez Venezuela

Apr 5th 2013, by George Ciccariello-Maher- Center for Economic and Policy
Research
[image: The Isaías Medina Angarita Communal Council (Luis Laya)]

The Isaías Medina Angarita Communal Council (Luis Laya)

There is a powerfully dangerous and condescending myth circulating about
so-called ‘civil society’ in Venezuela, which goes something like
this: as Daniel
Levine put 
it<http://venezuelablog.tumblr.com/post/46672313494/radio-discussion-with-daniel-levine-jennifer-mccoy-and>
on
a recent radio program, “there’s just not independent groups as we conceive
of civil society” in Venezuela. Focusing above all on the Communal Council
phenomenon, Levine portrays these directly democratic institutions not as
the radically participatory experiment they claim to be, but instead as
little more than a cynical ruse by the late Hugo Chávez and his movement to
enforce political objectives from above.

I can trace my interest in moving to Venezuela to this very question of
civil society. As a young Ph.D student, I clearly remember reading a number
of academic 
articles<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/latin_american_research_review/v041/41.1hawkins.html>
which
attempted to clumsily impose the pre-established conceptual framework of
civil society onto the development of participatory institutions in
Venezuela. First with the nascent Bolivarian Circles and later with the
Communal Councils formally established in 2006, U.S. academics have held up
the template of civil society, scratched their heads as to why it doesn’t
fit, and then concluded that since it does not, something must be wrong
with Venezuela and not with their own concept. The Circles and the
Councils, it was and continues to be argued, are not truly independent of
the state, and therefore cannot be civil society “as we conceive.”

Firstly, the concept of civil society *as we conceive it* emerged and was
cemented in struggles against dictatorship in the Southern Cone and against
Soviet bureaucracy in Eastern Europe, displacing the far more critical
variant associated with Gramsci. This new version privileges autonomy from
the state as *the *criterion, systematically obscuring other crucial forces
from which organizations might want to remain autonomous: imperial powers,
the capitalist market, etc.

As a result, many accept as nominally ‘independent’ many forces that are
nothing of the sort: private economic interests, NGOs with powerful
funders, and foreign-backed political parties. Such forces constituted the
bulk of the organized Venezuelan opposition, whose ‘civil’ credentials are
questioned by few. Some have therefore described the 2002 coup against
Chávez (which was reversed after 48 hours) as a “civil society
coup<http://www.jstor.org/stable/40209803>,”
and rightly so. It was this appropriation of an uncritical concept of civil
society more than anything else that led many Venezuelan Chavistas to
abandon the language of civil society at the same time that the
anti-Chavistas seized upon it: this concept doesn’t describe what we’re
doing, so *let them have it*.

Secondly, however, and more importantly, this idea that independent
organizations do not exist in Venezuela contains a willful neglect of and
indeed contempt for the many thousands of popular organizers who have been
struggling and continue to struggle autonomously and independently to
determine the future of the Revolution. In my recently released book, *We
Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan
Revolution<http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=19397>
*, I buck this trend of conceptual imperialism by talking to these
organizers directly and researching their decades-long struggles.

Speaking to those revolutionaries who are ironically shunned by critics not
for being *against* the government, but for being *for *it, I found an
oft-overlooked sector of *internal* critics of the Bolivarian process,
those demanding more solutions, less corruption, and above all a deepening
of the very same directly democratic institutions that ‘civil society’
academics deny exist. Contemporary Venezuela is veritably bursting with a
proliferation of grassroots organizations: from revolutionary collectives
that do not even let the official police enter their neighborhoods
(colloquially known as ‘Tupamaros’), to popular media outlets that are
radically critical of governmental policies, to those combative collections
of workers, peasants, urban dwellers, and students who occupy their
factories, land, housing, and universities *against* the explicit demands
of the Chavista leadership.

More importantly, whereas the critics focus on official institutions like
the Communal Councils, which are admittedly groundbreaking and important, I
unearth the pre-history that gives content to their form. In their
historical struggles against a corrupt and violent two-party representative
democracy, those who would become radical Chavistas experimented with and
developed popular assemblies and neighborhood militias. But when Chávez
emerged, more important for them than simply rejecting the state to
maintain their status as properly ‘civil’ society was figuring out a way to
use that state as a mechanism for transforming society (and the state
itself). Refusing power to conform to the academic standards of ‘civil
society’ was not a luxury that these organizers could afford.

But it seems as though, simply for supporting and identifying with a
project of political transformation, these radical organizers have been
disappeared with the stroke of a pen from the north, condemned to
non-existence, and excluded from a concept of civil society that was not
theirs to begin with. To dismiss as “dependent” on the state those who
struggled for decades *against* the state as they struggled against
capitalism, earning their political independence often at the expense of
imprisonment, torture, and even death, is a misrepresentation at best and
an insult at worst. And here is the irony: it is also an *internalization*,
disguised as critique, of the worst caricatures of populism and
clientelism, in which poor people are defined as simply too dumb to know
any better.

*This post was written by a guest blogger, George
Ciccariello-Maher<http://www.drexel.edu/histpol/contact/facultyDirectory/GeorgeCiccariello-Maher/>,
who
is a professor of political science in the Department of History and
Politics at Drexel University. To contact the author, please email gjcm(at)
drexel.edu.*
------------------------------
*Source URL (retrieved on 05/04/2013 - 11:48pm):*
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8503


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to