The Tripartite Alliance

Currently ruling South Africa is what’s called the “Tripartite Alliance”, which consists of the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. The friendship between these organizations goes back to the struggle against apartheid. During this period of “National Democratic Revolution”, the movement was relatively homogeneous in its orientation towards the abolition of tyrannical white-rule. However, after majority rule was institutionalized following the 1994 all-races election, a rift in the Alliance began to form between those that represented the interests of the impoverished majority and those that represented the interests of the national bourgeoisie: the black elites.

The African National Congress is both a member of the Tripartite and the parliamentary vehicle for all three constituents. The ANC itself is a social democratic organization, which supports some social programs while ignoring the systemic root of the widespread poverty that grips South Africa (although this may soon change). Its true loyalties are made evident in the ANC’s highly touted Black Economic Empowerment program, which gives substantial state support to black capitalists. In doing so, the ANC continues the marginalization and exploitation of workers, especially black workers, that the very apartheid system it fought to overthrow was conceived for.

On the other hand, there exists a wing of the Tripartite that upholds the interests of the working class (both urban and rural). It’s composed of the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions, two organizations closely allied in the common struggle for a socialist South Africa (the former somewhat more vocally than the latter). COSATU is the largest trade union in the country, while the SACP has a rich history of struggle that has earned it the loyalty of many South Africans.

In the aftermath of the 1994 election, the right wing of the Alliance slowly rose to dominance. During the presidency of Nelson Mandela, it became clear that the socialist society many envisioned after the end of apartheid was not going to materialize without further struggle. However, it was not until 1999 and the ascension of Thabo Mbeki that neo-liberalism fully descended on South Africa. Corruption, privatization, and all the other hallmarks of neo-colonialism deepened as a result, leading to a great amount of tension within the Tripartite Alliance and finally a major split.

The roots of the schism go back to 2005, when the Deputy President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, was dismissed by Mbeki. Zuma, a fiery populist, was then faced with several politicized charges of corruption. However, during the course of these high-profile legal battles, Zuma became a symbol of the mass base of the ANC that opposed the neo-liberal betrayal of its founding principles. The Mbeki and Zuma camps fought a definitive battle at the 52nd National Conference of the ANC, held in Polokwane in 2007.

What transpired was an overwhelming victory for the left. Strengthened by the hardships the people have endured under neo-liberalism, the SACP and COSATU flexed their muscles in favor of the leftist Zuma, who won the ANC presidency with over 60% of the vote, defeating Thabo Mbeki. Furthering the defeat of the neo-liberal right was the victory, with nearly 62% of the vote, of Kgalema Motlanthe, a close ally of Zuma, who became deputy president of the ANC and later President of South Africa while Chairman of the South African Communist Party Gwede Mantashe became the General Secretary of the ANC with 62.4% of delegates supporting him.

In response, the most right-wing of the ANC national bourgeoisie left the party in 2008. Led by Mosiuoa “Terror” Lakota, these die-hard opponents of Zuma founded the Congress of the People (COPE), which espouses a mix of neo-liberal and center-left views, much like New Labour in the UK.

But for Zuma to even have a chance to change the nation, he would have to secure a crushing mandate from the people, and that’s exactly what he did. Last week’s election results revealed a landslide victory for the Tripartite Alliance, although it did lose its two-thirds supermajority. Specifically, 65.9% of the vote went to the ANC, 16.66% to the centrist, white-led Democratic Alliance, and an embarrassing 7.42% to COPE. Furthermore, a superb 77.3% of voters participated, which should prompt the social movements that called for a boycott to reevaluate their tactics.

Zuma — Glass Half Empty

So now that Zuma has won, let’s take a closer look at his political orientation. The new president of South Africa is a complex man with complex views, indicative of the ideological schizophrenia of the Tripartite. It’s important to analyze both his progressive and reactionary sides. First: a pessimistic look.

Zuma’s personal conduct leaves a lot to be desired. Although he was quick to apologize, the president made a high-profile homophobic remark, calling homosexuality “a disgrace”. This chauvinistic attitude can also be seen in his repeated participation (Zuma has had four wives) in the lobolo custom. Lobolo involves the payment of a woman’s family for the right to marry her, reducing the bride to a piece of property. Also, the President was a close friend of Schabir Shaik, a capitalist that was convicted of corruption in a high-profile trial.

In word, Jacob Zuma is by no means a model revolutionary. For example, here’s an excerpt from a speech he made to the American Chamber of Commerce at its Thanksgiving dinner in 2008:

Ladies and gentlemen, I said earlier during some of my business meetings in the United States I encountered a common question, based on media reports back home.

There appeared to be a concern about the role played by the SA Communist Party in particular, and our Alliance partners in general in policy making.

ANC policies are formulated by the ANC. Our alliance partners participate in the process, and bring to the fore the interests of the constituencies they represent. This brings much-needed balance to the broad church.

However, they cannot and do not dictate to the ANC what its policy should be. We also cannot dictate their policies as well. We have a relationship based on mutual respect.

Here Zuma spinelessly goes out of his way to ease the minds of the western bourgeoisie and reveals quite clearly that he is at least partially loyal to the capitalist system that is the bane of the South African people.

Zuma — Glass Half Full

It should also be recognized that the President-elect of South Africa has many qualities that set him apart from the run of the mill career politician. His oratory is inspiring and down to earth; free of the condescending double talk that characterizes the rhetoric of bourgeois statesmen. Zuma is also found of singing the militant anti-apartheid song “Umshini Wami” (“Bring Me My Machine Gun”).

There are plenty of statements Zuma has made that could be cited as support for an optimistic outlook. For example, he stated on December 16th, 2008 at the 47th Anniversary of the formation of Umkhonto We Sizwe (the armed wing of the ANC during the fight against apartheid):

Comrades, the ANC is a learning organisation. We have learnt from the mistakes of the past 15 years, especially the manner in which we may have, to some degree, neglected the people’s movement in our focus on governance.

From 1994, we had to focus primarily on transforming the State and the country, and to deliver on the basic needs of our people. We have to a large extent done well. Thousands of people have water, electricity, roads, public health care, access to education, houses and other basic services.

However, we may not have balanced our governance and party work well. In this context, all who led the ANC in the past 15 years should take collective responsibility for any possible weaknesses, as well take credit for the successes.

The various problems that developed could have been averted and some of our key structures and sectors would not have been neglected as they have been.

This statement reflects exactly the kind of honest, self-critical reflection necessary to prepare the path for radical anti-capitalist inroads.

Conclusions

Faced with a leader of unpredictable loyalties, what is the left-wing of the Tripartite to do? Abandoning the ANC and starting fresh would consume a tremendous amount of resources and those involved would have to face a long and treacherous path to get their foot in the door of state power. However, should the leftists choose to keep the alliance intact, which they very clearly are doing, the socialist forces will have a good deal of leverage to push Zuma in a revolutionary direction. It’s important to keep in mind that the future of South Africa rests not with one man, but with the constructive struggle of millions. The organizations potentially capable of leading this struggle are COSATU and the SACP, but for them to reach this potential they must first take a serious look at their actions over the last fifteen years and commit themselves to standing up when rightist elements of the ANC try to exert influence counter to the interests of the people.

Should the progressive forces of South Africa succeed in establishing 21st Century Socialism outside of Latin America , the ramifications will be earth-shattering. No longer will the ideology be confined to a single region, a single national liberation movement, but will spread to all oppressed nations and peoples, becoming the banner around which revolutionary elements the world over will rally. This internationalization is of paramount importance to the struggle against the rule of capital and to establish a just, democratic, and egalitarian world.

That said, we should not become too emotionally and politically invested in the radical trajectory of Zuma, which is dubious. However, working-class victory is, now more than at any other time since the defeat of apartheid, within reach. As legendary freedom fighter and SACP leader Joe Slovo said: “It’s not difficult in South Africa for the ordinary person to see the link between capitalism and racist exploitation, and when one sees the link one immediately thinks in terms of a socialist alternative.”

1. Development and Globalization: Facts and Figures. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2004: 25.

Ecuador

First, to deal with the nation that had first vanquished the secessionists, Ecuador . Alianza PAIS (Proud and Sovereign Fatherland Alliance), the ruling party of President Rafael Correa, had lead a movement against neo-liberalism and for a new, progressive constitution. After his initial election and two subsequent electoral victories, the stage was set for the final referendum in late September 2008 to approve or reject the product of several years of struggle. It would open up new avenues for reversing the ravages of neo-liberalism and further popular participation in the administration of state power; a critical step for the most cautious nation in the Bolivarian camp.

In opposition, including the ever present puritanical voice of the Catholic Church, were the secessionists in the important province of Guayas, led by the mayor of Guayaquil (host city of the 2006 CONFILAR gathering), Jaime Nebot. Thanks to a vibrant array of social movements, the right-wing opposition was defeated overwhelmingly, with 64% of the voters favoring the new constitution nationally and 51% in Guayas.

Since this victory, the secessionists have been largely silent. With less initial support than their Venezuelan and Bolivian counterparts, it seems that the elites have apparently decided to pursue different tactics to derail the changes sweeping Ecuador, which may very well include co-opting Correa’s “Citizen’s Revolution.” New contradictions have risen during the rule of the transitional regime that holds caretaker power until the April elections, which has brought the government into conflict with one of the most important social movements in the nation, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE).

The dispute centers over the rights to mine Ecuador’s vast natural resources. The government has signed a deal with a multinational corporation based in Canada which APAIS argues that it will help the economy and increase government control, but others are uneasy about the multinational’s presence, with CONAIE in large part against any mining at all. Several large, militant demonstrations and blockades were held, which were met by police repression.¹ This friction, in addition to disputes over the minimum wage, is making it very apparent that Correa will soon be made to choose between yielding to the national bourgeois elements of the revolution or utilize the new constitution to advance in an explicitly socialist direction.

Venezuela

In Venezuela , the revolution led by Hugo Chavez is leading the charge towards the Bolivarian Socialist ideal: a united Latin America whose future is not contingent on Washington, Wall Street, or their lackeys, but the will of the people, with whom power exclusively resides. As the trajectory of Chavez and PSUV (the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) grew ever more radical in the face of the international crisis facing capitalism, contradictions reached new heights in the run-up to the November 2008 regional elections, especially in the state of Zulia, rich in oil and under the control of CONFILAR-affiliated governor Manual Rosales (recently replaced by his hand-picked successor Pablo Perez Alvarez)

Violence perpetrated on behalf of the capitalist class was the defining facet of the opposition’s strategy to build momentum after the Bolivarian forces were defeated in late 2007. Groups of quasi-political, petty-bourgeois thugs like the M13 (March 13th Movement) incited violence as they had been doing so for quite some time, but the anti-democratic forces went much further. Involving owners of some of the biggest news outlets in Venezuela and several rightist officers, a coup was planned and was apparently very close to being executed when it was uncovered on September 11th of last year. Having closed this especially viscous avenue, the election proceeded relatively normally (as normal as an election could considering the sheer quantity of US meddling), and on November 23rd, there were no major disturbances. The interpretation of the results varies widely.

First, let’s get the facts straight.² The last time Venezuela had municipal elections pro-Chavez forces won 21 of 23 governorships. However, as the socialist orientation of the Bolivarian revolution became more apparent, several parties showed their true, counter-revolutionary colors and joined the opposition. When the elections were held, PSUV and its allies controlled 16 of the governorships; after the election, they controlled 17. Roughly 60% of votes went for pro-Chavez candidates, which is the level of support the Bolivarians have consistently received throughout the course of the revolution. 4 of 5 mayoral elections went in favor of the PSUV-led Patriotic Alliance.

There are some unnerving aspects of the results. The five elections that PSUV lost were in some of the most heavily populated states, and therefore only 57% of Venezuelans have socialist governors. This is especially troubling as it suggests that the urban proletariat’s support for the revolution is dwindling, for the most part due to the government’s inability to deal with high crime rates. As for Zulia, PSUV was defeated and Rosales and his allies retained power. However, with the defeat of secessionism in Bolivia and Ecuador, there has been almost no secessionist rhetoric, perhaps due to the overall socialist victory in the elections.

The Bolivarian forces experienced a critical success in the municipal elections. On the other hand, it showed the worrying possibility of stagnation in revolutionary fervor; the only remedy for which is a deepening of people’s power. Essential to this ongoing struggle is the leadership of Hugo Chavez, whose absence would create a possibly fatal power vacuum that could be filled by the “Endogenous Right” (the small but dangerous national bourgeois tendency within PSUV).

The victory of November 23rd can only be solidified with a victory on February 15th, the date of the referendum to abolish term limits.

Bolivia

In Bolivia , the greatest battle between the Bolivarians (Evo Morales’ Movement for Socialism, MAS) and the secessionists took place. The magnitude of this confrontation was greatly exacerbated by the complex ethnic makeup of the nation, with the largely white Media Luna (Crescent Moon) region, filled with natural resources, in antagonism with the densely populated indigenous Andean areas. The first bold political moves by the mostly white oligarchy took place on May 4th, when a referendum on autonomy was held in Santa Cruz province, tainted with violence carried out by the Santa Cruz Youth Union,³ a group of fascist-inspired thugs. Seeking to strike back and assert the popularity of the leftist central government, a referendum was called on August 10th which would confirm or recall the head of state and the prefects of all nine departments in Bolivia. This turned out to be a stunning success for MAS, with two-thirds of voters preferring to retain Morales as President and recalling two secessionist prefects. This set the stage for the civil coup.

Defeated overwhelmingly in an internationally-observed, democratic referendum, the secessionist capitalists tried to violently overrule the people. Shutting down daily life, attacking important infrastructure, and massacring those in their way, a “Civil Coup,” as it came to be known, occurred in early September of last year. The people, well organized by the nation’s robust social movements, were quick to strike back. Backed up by UNASUR and eventually the Bolivian Army, massive protests threatened to lay siege to the Media Luna. Giving up some ground in negotiations (mostly having to do with term limits), the crisis ended and the referendum was scheduled for January 25th.

The campaign for the referendum was not especially dramatic widely expected to go in MAS’ favor. Most polls showed support at around 65% percent, and the only real opposition came from the private media, which launched a disinformation campaign in the tradition of their notoriously deceptive Venezuelan counterparts.⁴ In the end, over 61% voted in favor of the constitution.⁵

While this was a great victory for the oppressed people of Bolivia , the results,⁶ when looked at through a regional and demographical lens, also revealed some troubling blind spots. The Media Luna largely rejected the constitution. For example, in Santa Cruz , whose governor is the de facto leader of the secessionists, “No” won 65-35. It also became clear that MAS has been so far unable to overcome the contradiction between town and country and unite workers in both the countryside and the cities. In rural areas, the constitution was approved by over 80% of the population. This is important as it will provide a serious hindrance to secession, with the rural provinces eating away at the otherwise large portion of Bolivia within the Media Luna. However, only 52% of the urban population voted “Yes”, highlighting the need for MAS to truly become a multi-ethnic vanguard and reach out to the industrial proletariat that may not be of indigenous heritage. If it does not, then the mantle of secessionism could be taken up once again by the oligarchy.

Hasta la Victoria Siempre

The CONFILAR secessionists have, for the most part, been neutralized. This is by no means the end of the revolutionary road Latin America (and especially these three nations) has been traveling on; rather, this victory has simply opened up new avenues. All three nations must take this opportunity to radicalize: Venezuela needs to break with capitalism on a fundamental level, Morales’ must proudly proclaim his socialist beliefs, and Correa must break out of the constrictive mold of social democracy. The bold rebellions against neo-liberalism have yet again been successfully defended, and the people must ceaselessly fight for the complete annihilation of capitalism and its resulting social ills, the only way to guarantee sovereignty and democracy.

1. http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1659/1/
2. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3990
3. http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1270/31/
4. Tinyurl
5. www.cne.org.bo/ResultadosRNC2009/
6. Tinyurl

Political Entrenchment

Before we delve into the (relatively new) economic benefits to certain sectors (obviously not the economy as a whole), we need to review what makes bourgeois parliamentarianism so necessary to the maintenance of capitalism. Going back in history to the transition from feudal to bourgeois rule, it would be a tough sell for the budding capitalist class to mirror the absolutism of the landed gentry. On the one hand, some concessions had to be made, but on the other the dictatorship of a minority class still had to be enforced. A system dependent on corporate cash, electoral ostracism, and (as will be focused on later) media hegemony had to be forged, dressed in sparkling rhetoric to entrap progressive forces and dupe the vast majority. The established media, as an institution dependent on the capitalist system, will naturally play a leading role in presenting this illusion of choice.

Before we can understand just how warped the version of the election the corporate media gives, we have to get the real picture. We have John McCain, a millionaire from a military family who famously owns seven houses, and opposing him is Barrack Obama, a Harvard-educated millionaire lawyer. As for the current financial crisis, we know where both of their interests lie. As of late September Obama’s number one contributor is Goldman Sachs, closely followed by Citigroup at number three while 35% of Obama’s top 20 donors are connected to big banks. At the same time, the five largest donors to the McCain campaign are major banks, with Merrill Lynch taking the top spot, kept company by the 60% of his top 20 contributors who are major players in the banking industry.

Both candidates are ardent imperialists; they just differ on their preferred target. McCain, as architect of the surge, has made it clear that he’d like to continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Obama is widely seen as the peace candidate, although he has used phrases like “residual forces” in order to mask the fact that he plans on leaving behind tens of thousands of soldiers to deny the Iraqi people sovereignty. However, he has, quite openly, called for an escalation in Afghanistan. Apparently moving mass-slaughter east a few hundred miles is change we can believe in. On Iran, McCain and Obama keep referring to the government as a sponsor of terrorism (read: not subservient to the West), and both back sanctions that, as the tragedy in Iraq during the later half of the 1990s has shown, are just as devastating as weapons of mass destruction. Obama might carry a bigger carrot and McCain a bigger stick, but every action they’ll take towards the Third World will advance the same arrogant imperialist system.

A race between almost identical candidates presents a twofold problem to the media and the bourgeoisie. First, something this inconsequential doesn’t sell advertising time. Second, not only will people be bored, but, infinitely worse, they’ll be angry. God help the capitalists if people vote for a progressive like Cynthia McKinney or a revolutionary like Gloria LaRiva. Collectively and in a decentralized fashion driven by a common goal, a script rivaling the latest Hollywood blockbuster was put together.

The country is in crisis, an unpopular president has led an unpopular war and the economy is on the verge of collapse. Who appears to rescue the ignorant masses? Barrack Obama! He looks different than those who proceeded him, his name sounds different (his bank account looks the same); he has to represent change, right? But this untested man might not be up for the task; who could challenge this newcomer in the tradition of the hard-line heroes of yesteryear we once trusted with our safety (and the rest of the world burned in effigy)? A maverick, a war hero (don’t let the burnt flesh of innocent Vietnamese men, women, and children lead you to call him something else), John McCain. And the best part is that you get to “decide”! * Not applicable to undocumented workers or felons

Economic Perks

Beyond the theoretical consequences that overt tyranny (or, more accurately, what would very soon replace it) would have on the financial situation of the corporate media, there is a direct business opportunity that presents itself to motivate not only the executives at the top but the rank-and-file reporters for almost impeccable collusion with the greater capitalist superstructure. Tremendous yields are derived from the spectacle of the bourgeois elections, demonstrably so with the television news networks.

CNN, one of the giants of cable news, attracted roughly 2 million viewers in February of 2008, when the primary elections were heating up. Between 2004 and 2008 (when coverage of the 04 presidential election, mid-term election, and 08 presidential election flowed together almost without a pause), CNN doubled its profits, making an extra $200,000,000. Media behemoth News Corp. (owner of Fox News) reported (also in February 2008) a 9.5% increase in revenue and a $10,000,000 increase in net income, greasing the wheels of Murdoch’s acquisition of Dow Jones. NBC (owner of MSNBC) saw a huge increase in revenue as the primaries began, 8% ($33,000,000) and a 10% increase in profits.

Beyond increases in ad revenue for the television stations, print, radio, even non-media sectors (signs have to be made, venues rented, etc.) benefited. To understand the magnitude of this, we have to look at the enormous sums of cash raised by the campaigns. Cumulatively, the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party have gathered $511,040,553. Their Republican counterparts have together raised $415,950,247; meaning that the twin parties of war and capitalism have, together, nearly one billion dollars to funnel to their close friends, the bourgeois captains of industry. Coupled with increases in profit for local news outlets as well as international ones, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that American “Democracy” is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Our Democracy

When speaking of building a society based on the participation of the masses of society, they have failed (as I hope I’ve just made obvious), we will succeed. What will our democracy look like? Sparing the details of how this new apparatus of government will be established or what exactly the institutions by which the will of the people is executed will look like, there are several principles we must adhere to. First of all, for the people to truly be masters of their collective destiny, civic institutions must be participatory. At all levels, the representatives must be constantly in touch with constituents. Of course, different institutions of state power will carry this out as appropriate; municipal officials may rely on community meetings while national delegates may hear the voice of the people via mass organizations (trade unions, cooperative federations, etc.). All elected officials must be subject to swift recall at any time and, most importantly, they must be of the same stock as the vast majority of society; they must be working class people themselves.

The above, however, is secondary. Civic institutions are set up to meet the needs of those who hold material power, the ruling class. So what institutions of economic participation can assure that the people rule? First, democracy must begin at the workplace level. The day to day administration of the means of production, whether it’s a fast food restaurant or a major auto plant, must be left to the workers and their democratically elected workplace leaders. In facilitating this democratic process, trade unions or other independent, revolutionary mass organizations could play a very helpful role. In order to eliminate the anarchy in production, and inequality and stratification amongst the working class itself as well as defend this new society, a planned economy is an absolute must. This, by necessity, will be done at a broad, national level. However, the process by which these plans are made must be based primarily on consultations with all sectors of society so that it truly represents the needs and wants of the vast majority and prevents bureaucratic corruption.

The radical left must organize the fight for a new society, but do so tactically. Does this mean voting for the lesser of two evils? Certainly not; in fact, Obama’s “Hope” will do nothing but pump life into the dieing capitalist system. Does this mean running tactically in the elections? Certainly; if possible, we should use bourgeois institutions as a platform to spread the message that there is an alternative to this wretched system. We must expose the hypocrisy of the bourgeois show elections, in large part by pointing out the profiteers and their role in shaping public opinion. As neo-liberalism begins to collapse, let’s use the 2008 elections as both a starting point for a mass movement and an example of the fact that capitalism and democracy are antithetical.

Bolivia

In Bolivia, the secessionists are well organized and more powerful than their Venezuelan and Ecuadorian counterparts. Emboldened by CONFILAR and after sufficient agitation, the largely white ruling class of this Andean nation had an epiphany: that autonomy was the only way to escape Morales’ redistribution of wealth. The first aggressive action taken by the oligarchy was on May 4th with the illegal autonomy referendum held in Santa Cruz Department. Morales called for abstention in this quasi-consultation plagued with violence perpetrated by the Santa Cruz Youth Union, and, if abstentions are counted as no votes, the voting was split almost exactly down the middle.

This set the stage for the August 10th recall referendum for the President, Vice President, and all of the departmental prefects, called with support from both the governing MAS (Movement for Socialism) and the opposition. While some counter-revolutionaries thought that this would strengthen their position, the referendum did just the opposite. The people showed tremendous support for Morales, who garnered over 67% of the vote. In addition to this socialist victory, the secessionist prefects of the Cochabamba and La Paz departments were overwhelmingly voted out of office. After this great outpouring of popular support, the long-awaited constitutional referendum was called for December 7th, as well as the elections for those who would replace the recalled prefects. Having been trounced in the arena of democracy and faced with the threats of a very progressive constitution and that, in all likelihood, the secessionist prefects will find themselves in the minority, the oligarchy turned to violence.

The fighting began when “strikes” enforced by the Santa Cruz Youth Union were called in the Media Luna (as the departments ruled by the secessionists are called); which coincided with the seizure or vandalizing of government institutions and later, on September 10th, an attack on an important pipeline; truly a “civil coup.” This attack finally prompted Morales to deploy the military to defend vital infrastructure, and the violence reached its peak on September 11th when 16 pro-Morales peasants were massacred by groups connected to prefect Leopoldo Fernandez, who was later arrested. Faced with insurmountable odds, the oligarchs agreed to negotiate and the situation de-escalated after September 12th when negotiations began. These will almost certainly turn out favorably for the popular MAS government, as the powerful social movements of Bolivia had provided muscle were Morales was forced to be soft and will continue their blockade of the rebellious provinces until the referendum on the new constitution is secure. This referendum will (seeing the broad support for Morales during the crisis and in the recall referendum) almost certainly pass and consolidate and invigorate the socialist transformation taking place.

Ecuador

In Ecuador, the leftist government of Rafael Correa is the product of years of struggle. From the revolution that overthrew Lucio Gutierrez, who betrayed the people with his capitulation to neo-liberalism, to the Alianza PAIS (Proud and Sovereign Fatherland Alliance, Correa’s party) campaign to defeat the notorious capitalist Alvaro Noboa for the presidency, the Ecuadorian people have shown that exploitation is not acceptable. To that end, Correa’s APAIS administration (although one might stop short of calling the government socialist) has pursued an anti-imperialist line primarily via the drafting of a new constitution.

Within three months of Correa’s taking office, a referendum was held on whether or not to proceed with the restructuring of the apparatus of state power. Overwhelmingly, the people approved by a margin of over 4 to 1. This was, naturally, followed by an election for the constituent assembly that would draft the new constitution. Held less than six months later, APAIS crushed the other parties, garnering nearly 70% of the vote. A few months of hard work later a new framework for a just, independent Ecuador was laid, ensuring social security, healthcare, education, the end of foreign military presence, and regional solidarity. All that was left was to rally the people for a final vote, the September 28th constitutional referendum. And this is when our friends from CONFILAR come in.

Jaime Nebot, the mayor of Guayaquil and therefore host of CONFILAR, became the de facto leader of the opposition to the constitution alongside the Catholic Church, which played a major role in a well coordinated misinformation campaign via a disgusting spectacle of manipulation playing to homophobic and misogynistic tendencies the Church itself instilled in some Ecuadorians. Opposing them were the social movements, toughened by the struggle against the corrupt governments of the past, carrying out an even more efficient mobilization campaign emphasizing the history-making significance of this consultation.

When September 28th finally rolled around, there was, in reality, two elections going on. One in Ecuador as a whole, determining the fate of the progressive constitution, and another in Guayas province, where the level of approval for the constitution would determine whether or not there was any future for the CONFILAR strategy. In both contests, the secessionists were defeated, with 64% support nationally and 51% support in Guayas. To give a final dose of legitimacy to the new order, a general election will be held in a few months, and from there on it’s easy to see Correa radicalizing just as Chavez did after the passing of Venezuela’s progressive, 1999 constitution. Although this may be too bold, at present it seems that the oligarchy will have to de-emphasize its secessionist tactics.

Venezuela

Certainly more developed than the Ecuadorian secessionists, but less so than their Bolivian counterparts, a CONFILAR-originated quasi-movement for autonomy has reared its head in the oil-rich state of Zulia, whose governor, Manuel Rosales, is a long time opponent of Chavez and was complicit in the 2002 coup attempt. In Venezuela, the opposition forces (which includes the media in its near entirety) are arguably the most radical and definitely the most hardened and manipulative. With tremendous popular support, Hugo Chavez and PSUV, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (in one incarnation or another), have won every election they faced with the exception of the most recent, the 2007 constitutional referendum. Through a combination of insufficient agitation by the Bolivarian forces and the vehement anti-Chavez attitude of the media, the constitution was defeated. The oligarchs used this momentum to attempt to construct a two-pronged counter-revolution: electoral organizing (backed by US government slush funds like USAID) and violence (carried out by thugs or reactionary officers).

The electoral organizing (if spending NED grants can be considered organizing) is focused on the November 23rd regional elections. Currently, 21 of the 23 states have Bolivarian governors. However, up to seven of these positions could be lost, and especially critical is control of the governorship Zulia. The construction of socialism could be totally put on hold or even begin to reverse should the oligarchy be able to multiply its momentum. On the other hand, should PSUV be able to hold on to the vast majority of states, the weaknesses of the revolution could be rectified.

Undeniably, Chavez and PSUV have vast popular support, so while the regional elections may strengthen the opposition, it will certainly not be an outright victory. As such, violence is a key tactic of the desperate counter-revolutionaries. At first, this was confined to bands of thugs, most notable of these is the March 13th Movement (M13). For example, a little over two months ago M13 (consistent with their actions before the 2007 referendum) instigated a riot in the city of Merida. However, these paramilitary actions have proved insufficient. No, the oligarchy has no other alternative than to take the route of Pinochet, Banzer, and Stroessner.

On September 11th, the 35th anniversary of Pinochet’s seizure of power from the Allende government, it was announced that a coup was being planned involving officers both presently and formerly serving as well as media tycoons Miguel Henrique Otero and Alberto Federico Ravell, heads of El Nacional newspaper and Globovision channel, respectively. Using an F-16, the plotters would bomb Miraflores (the presidential palace) or shoot down Chavez’s plane with an AT-4 rocket launcher. Luckily, yet another usurpation of state power was averted through excellent intelligence gathering. However, even if a putsch had occurred, the people would have, just like they’ve done before, came out in force to re-establish democracy and sovereignty. It’s essential that the popular support that would drive such an action is maintained, and this means reaffirming the Bolivarian government’s dedication to entirely removing capitalism, possible only with a victory on November 23rd.

From the tremendous show of support for the socialist government in Bolivia, to the successful resistance against a reactionary civil coup, the establishment of a starting point for radical change in Ecuador, and courageous resistance against imperialist and capitalist influence in Venezuela, we may very well be seeing the defining moment in the fight for South American liberation. However, we should be careful not to assume a triumphant attitude in the light of these recent victories. Anti-imperialists of all nations (especially in the United States) should fight on and redouble their efforts to not only achieve national sovereignty by fighting Western (or more accurately, Northern) lackeys in the two elections to come but to consolidate this freedom via Latin American integration along socialist lines.

Hounded in the Towns… these undesirables with their inflammatory attitude end up in the countryside. It is then they realize in a kind of intoxication that the peasant masses latch on to their every word and do not hesitate to ask them the question… “When do we start?”

-Frantz Fanon¹

In almost every liberation struggle, there exists a fundamental difference between the interests of the progressive domestic capitalists and the oppressed, laboring masses. This dynamic takes on geographical terms in the contradiction between Town and Country, and is more than applicable to the anti-imperialist movement in Latin America. Predominantly moderate left wing-led South America bares a striking resemblance to the quintessential political landscape of a relatively better-off colonial city. Ravaged by the world food crisis and over a century of subjugation, politically destitute Central America resembles the countryside. When Central Americans ask the question “When do we start?” these undesirable Bolivarians with their inflammatory ideas about justice and participatory democracy retort confidently, “Right now”. As of August 25th, Honduras has joined the ALBA and taken them at their word. Just ask Hugo Llorens, who would have been the US Ambassador to that nation had his credentials not been withheld in defiance of American meddling in Bolivia and Venezuela.

Background

But first, one must understand Central American anti-imperialism and to do this the close correlation with South American resistance must be studied. Starting in the 1940s, progressive leaders like Jose Bustamante y Rivero in Peru and Romulo Betancourt in Venezuela came to power. More intensely repressed, Central America caught up about a decade later on, with their own brand of left-leaning nationalists like Jose Figueres Ferrer and Jacobo Arbenz. This time-difference repeated itself thirty years later, with the appearance of guerilla armies such as the Peoples Revolutionary Army in Argentina and the Tupamaros in Uruguay (along with the rest of the Revolutionary Coordinating Junta). Roughly 10 years later, in the 80s rather than the 70s, Central America exploded into struggle led by armed groups such as the FMLN, FSLN, and UNRG. Fast-forward another thirty years to about the year 2000 and we have people like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales in South America. If history is any indicator, the upcoming decade will be one of anti-imperialism further north, in Central America.

In the 40s and 50s, progressive elites led the way. In the 70s and 80s, it was the masses who took the reigns. However at the dawn of the 21st century, both elements are united in their fight against US hegemony. This has proved stunningly successful, and it seems clear that, rather than an informal transfer of revolutionary energy, it seems that South American political institutions will directly aid in the development of Central American resistance. This political institution, for reasons that will be dealt with later on, will be the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). The ALBA is an alliance of left-wing governments (Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Nicaragua, and now, Honduras, with President Correa of Ecuador professing a clearly positive attitude towards it) based on mutual aid and integration in the face of neo-colonialism.

Zelaya and Honduras

This brings us to Honduras. Why on earth would President Manuel Zelaya of the Liberal Party of Honduras (a very generous observer would call the party center-left) support the socialist, anti-imperialist ALBA when he was happily shaking George Bush’s hand nearly two years ago to the day? Why would he take tremendous risks by showing solidarity with Bolivia and Venezuela by limiting diplomatic relations with Washington? To answer this, it’s imperative that we understand in whose interests he governs. The classic model of struggle between oppressed labor and oppressive capital takes on a new dimension when this capital becomes finance capital. Political economy therefore dictates that the imperialist power structure relies on a group of middle men, the national bourgeoisie, to act as a surrogate. It is therefore in this class’ interests to struggle against US hegemony to gain greater political sovereignty, but maintain capitalism. As a general rule, economic impulses take priority over political urges (when they don’t go hand in hand), and so they have been, until recently, loyal to the United States. However, something has happened to this capitalism that the national bourgeoisie wants so badly; it’s no longer their capitalism.

Implicit in the relationship between national and imperial bourgeoisie is a cut of the profits being reserved for the domestic capitalists. In the post-Cold War whirlwind of neo-liberalism, this basic tenant was violated. A report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean states:

“Average FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] flows to Mexico and the Caribbean Basin amounted to US$ 7.6 billion in the first half of the 1990s, then rose to US$ 17.4 billion in the second half; this figure was slightly below the average for the period 2002-2004.”

The immediate effect of this deluge of finance capital is the strangulation of domestic business, while the political effect is an increase in the attractiveness of progressive ideals leading to drastic, pro-ALBA actions like the one taken by Zelaya.

Why not form an organization independent from both the United States and the Bolivarians? We must remember that precedents for Central American struggle are derivative to a large degree from South America. The closest thing to an international manifestation of the desires of the newly progressive domestic capitalists in that region is the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR). Centered around the Southern Cone of South America, it would be an organizational stretch for them to expand to Central America. Even if the logistics were there, it’s doubtful to an extreme to think that, on the verge of liberation, the Pink Tide (as the moderate-left wing governments in South America are referred to) will help their counterparts further north; especially now that it would be perceived (correctly so) to be a slight to their Bolivarian allies.

Beyond Self-Interested Elites

While the actions of the Honduran government will greatly benefit the impoverished population and should be met with solidarity, there is a solid wall of class antagonisms and ulterior motives that will prevent any alterations to the social structure of the nation (or any nation that follows in its footsteps). Action only by the masses can end capitalism and the exploitation it’s based on. What opportunities open up to the vast majorities when the ex-collaborators with imperialism turn on their foreign backers? The main advantage the people have gained is space — space to organize without repression and space get a foot in the door of state power.

The ALBA, being a broad, action-based organization created solely for the purpose of struggle against neo-liberalism and the artificial borders that reinforce it, has the ability to reach a hand out to aid the political maturation of worker-oriented (regardless of economic sector) emancipation movements.
Because of the influence the radicals would gain through these inevitable leftward diplomatic realignments (many are bound to follow Honduras) they would earn some sort of political reciprocation. The absence of opposition to mass organizing and mobilization is a matter of course, and hence the political consciousness of the people will spike dramatically. This would be reflected by a change in the makeup of the governing administration. However, a separate electoral force to serve the interests of the masses might drive an indelible wedge between nationalist elements. In its stead, social movements must flex the collective muscles of the people to further modify the trajectory of the state (and can, of course, mobilize in the electoral sphere when it becomes necessary).

Social Movements

These umbrella organizations have, in this recent wave of anti-imperialism, been an important engine of popular power and consultation. The tasks of social movements will differ according to type of nation in which they operate. Of the seven nations, the FSLN government of Daniel Ortega is the only one which governs solely in the interests of the poor majority. However, with the memory of Contra terrorism fresh in Ortega’s mind the Nicaraguan government is understandably wary of bold advances away towards socialism; making the government unpopular. It’s very likely that the FMLN candidate Mauricio Funes will win the upcoming election in El Salvador and join Ortega in governing in the Bolivarian tradition. Just as likely, Funes’ timidity (buckling under the pressure of a hostile media, he’s made worrying statements contrary to the FMLN’s heroic tradition of radicalism such as, “El Salvador needs a democratic, realistic and responsible left”) will cause the same problems that the FSLN faces. In these nations, the social movements could provide a rejuvenating shove to the left.

The second and most prevalent scenario will be one in which social movements operate in nations ruled by representatives of the national bourgeoisie, oscillating between anti-imperialism and voluntary subjugation. Social movements in these countries will likely have, very soon, the option of work in conjunction with the ALBA (which has and will most likely continue to take a diplomatic tone) as a looming specter in a carrot-or-the-stick dynamic. Already, mass organizations have made their presence felt in nations with a moderate-left government. For example, in Panama, two large political strikes were called, on August 14th and another on September 4th. This undoubtedly had influence on the ruling PRD’s (Democratic Revolutionary Party) internal elections held on September 7th. This clout will increase exponentially as a domino effect of Central American cooperation with the ALBA becomes apparent.

What should social movements do when faced with a government not of the people or even the national bourgeoisie, but of pro-imperialist elites? As the only unequivocally pro-US government in Central America with any longevity, this is only applicable to Mexico, but as one of the largest nations in the hemisphere, it is of the utmost importance. An example of a group that successfully faced similar conditions as those found in Mexico can be found in Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo’s Patriotic Alliance for Change. The APC is an alliance of all forces opposed to the corrupt Colorado party (just as the Mexican people fight the corrupt National Action Party), and owes much of its support to the nation’s social movements. Mexico already has an alliance of left-leaning political parties (the Broad Progressive Front, composed of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, the Labor Party, and the Convergence Party) as well as strong social movements, which have recently staged two national demonstrations and will soon stage another. All that’s needed is for these two forces to link up and create a single vehicle for struggle against neo-colonialism.

So, to wrap up, we have, in accordance with recurring historical intervals, an emerging struggle in Central America. It could be assisted either by Pink Tide affiliated MERCOSUR or the Bolivarians. The later, being dynamic and action-oriented (as opposed to the lame-duck former), will naturally aid the newly rebellious national bourgeois forces of the region. The actions of Zelaya in Honduras will likely start a domino effect of moderate left-wing governments ascending into the ALBA. As a result the radical left, representing the poor masses, will gain strength. More broadly, it can now be asserted with confidence that the revolution sweeping Latin America will intensify at the Empire’s doorstep. Hugo Chavez best summed up this sense of a truly comprehensive movement when he said at the celebration of Honduras’ entry into the ALBA:

“We are now millions of men and women, workers, young people, students, Indians, mixed-racial people, whites. We have woken up; the people have awakened from their lethargy.”

1. The Wretched of the Earth, page 28-29.