Letters
Embracing Chavez
To the Editor:
In their article “Should the U.S. Left Embrace Chavez?” [October 2007], Martin Burke and Elham Seyedsayamdost raise some important issues concerning the direction of Venezuelan politics under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. Nevertheless, their analysis rests on a number of debatable assumptions and misinterpretations that deserve further discussion.
Martin and Elham frame their critique of Chavez within Ivan Krastev’s theory of “democracy’s doubles.” While this is an entirely appropriate strategy, they fail to properly engage with Krastev’s work on a number of counts. Most importantly, they conflate Krastev’s critique of “direct democracy” with Chavez’s rhetoric of “participatory democracy,” two categories that must be rendered analytically distinct. Even if Krastev’s contention that direct democracy necessarily poses a threat to its liberal counterpart, participatory democracy does not. As the work of critical theorists on the issue suggests, in weak states especially, participatory democracy often sets the stage for the future emergence of a strong liberal order.
Yet it seems from the article that Martin and Elham assume a strong liberal democracy already exists in Venezuela, and that it’s being dismantled by Chavez’s autocratic rule. Numerous scholars have pointed out, however, that in the years before Chavez came to power, the democratic institutional structure established at Punto Fijo had come to resemble a rotting corpse of highly corrupt two-party rule. In contrast to those caught off guard by Chavez’s attempted coup in 1992, many analysts familiar with the public dissatisfaction with puntofijismo were surprised at the time that the coups weren’t a wild success.
Furthermore, on the issue of Chavez’s intolerance of opposition, the authors correctly site the 2007 Amnesty International Report that documents state-sponsored human rights violations. Unfortunately, there’s no mention that AI’s annual report on Venezuela traditionally varies little from year to year. Indeed, a look at AI’s 1997 report (the year before Chavez took office) exhibits eerily similar language to that quoted in Martin and Elham’s article. AI reported then that “the widespread use of torture and ill-treatment by the security forces, including the army, continued to be reported, and those responsible continued to benefit from impunity.”
In fact, practices of torture and disappearance have been a mainstay of Venezuelan politics for quite some time. They did not originate with Chavez, nor is it clear that current abuses are tied to him.
The authors also question the value and efficacy of Venezuela’s state-sponsored social welfare programs. They cite the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) as evidence that “these social campaigns may not have had the desired outcome.” While it’s certainly the case that Venezuela’s ranking dropped considerably between 1999 and 2005 (from 48th place to 75th), it’s incorrect to assume that this necessarily reflects poorly on the country’s developmental progress. As the UN Development Report itself warns, “HDI values and rankings are not comparable across editions of the Report…The year-to-year changes in the HDI values and rankings…often reflect changes in data…rather than real changes in a country…A country’s rank could drop considerably between two consecutive reports, but the values for a country could actually show an improvement.” A quick comparison between the 1999 and 2005 reports reflects that Venezuela has, in fact, improved in the areas of infant mortality rates, adult literacy, and total school enrollments. Moreover, while the HDI shows that GDP per capita has worsened in the span of these six years, a recent report published by the Center for Economic Policy and Research shows that poverty has consistently lessened in Venezuela since Chavez assumed the reigns of power.
This is not to suggest that Chavez has constructed a wonderland of progress destined to thrive. Chavez’s recent moves to centralize power, and extend his influence across borders through petrodiplomacy, should raise the eyebrows of those concerned with the country’s future prospects. At the same time, rarely discussed is the alternative.
Martin and Elham suggest that Chavez’s supposed commitment to democracy is belied by his own history of rebellion. But the corporate oligarchs controlling the opposition are no less afraid to stage a coup to seize power, as was demonstrated in 2002. In this light, democracy as some might like to see it doesn’t stand a chance in Venezuela regardless of who’s in power.
For the time being, we should take heart in the fact that Chavez’s misiones are largely what he boasts: effective grass-roots organizations working towards a more equitable society. As long as the increasingly centralized state is responsive to their demands and concerns, the flame of hope for democratic stability will continue to flicker. If Chavez or his successors turn their backs on these groups, then that same flame will be suffocated, leaving Venezuelan politics in the dark.
Michael Busch
Ph.D. Program in Political Science
On Certificates of Continuous Employment (CCEs), Contract “Details” and Clinical Professors
The current union contract is accompanied by a “side letter” from the Chancellor agreeing to provide 100 Adjunct Conversion lines to “long-serving” adjuncts. Unfortunately, the definition of “long-serving” agreed to by the union’s leadership is very restrictive and excludes a number of long-serving adjuncts.
At a meeting of the PSC’s Part-Time Personnel Committee (PTPC), where grad students are well represented, I brought this up with Barbara Bowen, PSC President. I suggested that multiple criteria be used to qualify for “long-serving” status. Barbara agreed and said this would be considered in a future agreement.
As “contingent” faculty, CUNY employs adjuncts from semester to semester and can non-reappoint us without explanation. In the current contract negotiations, the union is pressing to provide job security by awarding a Certificate of Continuous Employment (CCE) to adjuncts who satisfy qualification criteria. The October edition of the PSC’s Clarion newspaper printed a letter from me in which I reiterated the points above, and expressed the hope that narrow criteria would not be a feature of a new CCE agreement.
In Barbara’s unsatisfying response to my letter, she side-stepped this issue, but thanked me for my “attention to detail.” Labor contracts are all about detail. If the union leadership consulted more effectively with part-timers, we wouldn’t have so many contract issues caused by “details.”
Recently, Steve London, PSC First Vice President and member of the bargaining team, was a guest speaker at a Baruch PSC chapter meeting. I again brought up the qualification issue. Steve didn’t know anything about it. So, one can assume that the same contract-tested but inadequate qualification criteria are being used in the CCE discussions.
Steve said that I should communicate my concerns to Marcia Newfield, Chair of the PTPC, who would forward it on to Barbara, which is exactly what I had done. I asked him if I could speak with him about this, but he said he had another commitment. I said I would email him about it, which I did, copying Barbara. Weeks have passed without a response.
Steve also said that management wants to expand the use of “clinical” titles and said that the PSC was firmly opposed to this. As an adjunct at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch this got my interest since the AACSB, the accrediting body for business schools, recognizes that a mix of academically and professionally qualified faculty is desirable. I am professionally qualified, having spent many years working in the financial services and software sectors. I brought this up in my email and asked whether, as a “professionally qualified” faculty member, I might not enjoy better pay and benefits as a Clinical Professor.
Perhaps this issue is too threatening to a leadership that is invested in the faculty-as-guild model.
Stan Wine, Baruch College
Correction
In the recent Advocate article, “For Those Whose Deaths Never Made The News,” by Roisin O’Connor-McGinn, Ryan Nuckel of Visual Resistance is repeatedly referred to as Ryan Knuckle.
Kate Griffiths
Ph.D. Program in Anthropology
Leave a Reply
