|
Against Corruption Are Recognized and Upheld A Comparative Analysis of Popular
Political Mobilizations and Protests in Venezuela in 2002
By Jared DuBois
1) Introduction
All governments are corrupt to some degree. All suffer from a legitimacy
gap. All nations are ruled by a small group of privileged elites who usually
use their access to power to benefit themselves and their families and
friends financially, or those of their own ideology, party, profession,
or favor. This is most often a lawyer class which specializes in the law
and usually pass laws that benefit their profession, making it more necessary
and more tightly integrated to the center which their society revolves
around. This is changing to some degree now with a new "business class"
beginning to make its presence felt in politics, who see running a country
as the same as running a business, and with a profit motive always in mind.
While those with the most money have always enjoyed special access to power
and often are in the majority of the representatives, even when the majorities
of the public in their countries are quite poor, this new idea of putting
businessmen and CEO's in charge, running a government as a profit making
enterprise, this is especially prone to greater corruption, except for
those countries like the US which do not consider favoritism for sale to
the highest bidder (lobbying) for contracts
and influence illegal. For governments willing to embrace the idea that
the bottom line is all that matters, that a government is only after all
just another business, another form of corporation, such is the logical
new direction to take and corporate CEO's and business leaders are ready
to step into the top government jobs to take us there, for a price.
Corruption, nepotism, cronyism; they are all considered bad yet also tactically
accepted by the general public, though movements often form or flare up
suddenly from the static background to deal with these issues at certain
points in time, sparking rebellions, social movements, and sometimes successful
revolutionary movements. When the interests of the greater portions of
any given public are usually not represented in priorities or positions
by their governments, or their masses generally do not believe that their
governments put their own concerns above big businesses, their wealthy
elites, or foreign countries gaining or exerting influences, they can become
increasingly politically active and more prone to participate in such movements.
But if as I maintain, governments are always focused on their elites, always
self-serving to a smaller portion of the public or even to themselves,
what factor is key to why such movements succeed among the many diverse
factors which turn the passive acceptance of the day to day corruption
people take for granted, into successful movements to overthrow the current
status quo in hopes of something better?
In this paper I will try to define which factor might be paramount via
the examples of two movements which I define as populist-based in that
they involved a large portion of the public in demonstrations; one to overturn
an attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002, and the other to overturn a discredited
election in Ukraine in 2004. By the choice of these two cases, I hope to
illustrate what factor was key to why they occurred when they did, and
why they were ultimately successful.
2) Method of Comparison
The comparative method I chose for this line of inquiry was the Method
of Agreement, in which two very different countries of movements with a
similar aim (in this case to prevent a circumventing
of the rightful electoral processes winner) and which had similar
successful results are studied to find the one key variable that was the
same in both cases, (1) and thereby may have
been of greater influence. While there are some similarities between Venezuela
and Ukraine, there are many more differences between the two countries
and the movements are at odds in what most, including myself, consider
to often be a key factor, the prospect of outside help or support of the
international community's wealthiest countries for the times down the road.
In regards to the so-called "second wave" of democratic revolutions (2)
in the former USSR and Eastern Europe (Serbia
2000, Georgia, 2003, Ukraine 2004), some have maintained that
outside interference, NGO's, the European Union, and especially the US
have been instrumental in effecting these movements, (3)
an argument I believe is not without merit. While outside money and the
idea of gaining greater backing of richer countries to develop your economy
or just enrich yourself if you make the changes that you think those countries
or corporations want you to make, to take a stand against an election those
countries and groups would agree with you on as having been rigged, these
factors are great in helping success and even more, inspiring people to
believe that successful opposition is possible, or even that the regime
will have to back down at some point. The Russian Federation and other
FSU republics have been claiming these new "revolutions" were merely constructs
to gain influence, (4) remembering well how
quickly their influence and their own governments collapsed when facing
the same questions of legitimacy in a similar succession of popular uprisings
15 years ago, and the propensity their own public and officials had to
turn westward in their thinking because that was where the money and outside
support were perceived to be found.
In my mind, these "colored"
revolutions are not true revolutions, more replacing one discredited leadership
with another group of oligarchs or different oligarchs' supporters, often
within the same circles of power, promoting much the same agenda as the
previous leaderships, and often just as corrupt. (5)
Also I believe that they are not true revolutions because they came about
within the normal electoral processes, albeit with greater hurdles than
most countries must face to get a fair accounting of votes. They do qualify
though as popular movements which are political in nature.
Similarly, the uprising in Venezuela in 2002 I found as a good test case
against these because it was much more different to all of these movements
than to compare them with each other, and to give context to these new
"colored"
revolutions in that the time frame is the same. The popular uprising there
was also to keep an election result from being overturned, likewise not
a complete abandoning of the electoral process or the previous system.
Therefore, it too I would describe as a social movement, not a revolution,
so they can be compared as social movements in the same time period with
similar electoral leadership goals (Presidential).
And on what I consider often a key point, the interference of and/or support
of outside countries, namely the US, Venezuela was at a polar opposite
of the recent Eastern European movements support of them by the US.
The two approaches I will to attempt frame these uprisings or mass mobilizations
against a perceived attempted voiding of their rightfully elected Presidents
are: the Political Opportunity Theory approach; as well as attempting to
define them from Marxist approach or point of view.
The Political Opportunity Theory states that people are more likely to
engage in public protests and take action when they feel the political
structure is weakened after having been previously dominating or even oppressive.
Once there is perceived to be a new or sudden opening for change, people
begin to mobilize and a sea change in public attitude begins to take place
which can enable the revolution or movement to break through and become
dominant and ultimately successful in achieving its aims. This theory precludes
as I have stated in the introduction to be the case; that people are always
prone to or have reason to rebel or at least become more politically active
against any society which is fundamentally elite-based, and they will do
so and become more active when they sense that there is a new opportunity
presented to them to affect real substantial changes to benefit themselves
or their society. This perception of empowerment or opportunity then becomes
itself a factor in motivating them to greater activity, and this can have
a snowball effect, for the more others feel empowered, the more they become
empowered, and the more likely others become to join in. This approach
views opportunities as key turning points, but that though the potential
for change is always there, the perception and catalysts are greater at
some points than others and are major factors in the movements. (13)
The typical Marxist approach is that the pressure upon the working class
or Proletariat is constant and unending, and though possibly not necessarily
always equal in severity, it too is a constant force for potential for
change. One can say if the oppression is constant, from a purely Marxist
point of view then the greater oppression would lead to an increase in
the likelihood to rebel or participate in mass uprisings or protests. The
greater the downward pressure felt, the greater the response would likely
be to counter growing or increasingly oppressive regimes if that regime
was increasingly undermining or exploiting its own underclass Proletariat
and a Marxist view tends to frame all such struggles along class-based
lines.
While both theories of social revolution or mobilization state that the
pressure or desire for change is unending (in
Marxism, at least unending until there is an equality or loss of previous
classes into one equal non-class-based society), the Political
Opportunity Theory states that a key factor is the lessening of control
or event which signals an opportunity to rebel might prove successful,
(14) whereas one would think under a Marxist
approach, the time people are most likely to rebel is when oppression is
at its highest.
4) Hypothesis 1- Testing the
Political Opportunity Theory
The election in Ukraine in 2004 which was widely declared fraudulent is
a key illustration and good example of the Political Opportunity Theory.
A poor impoverished, politically powerless populace was given a golden
opportunity at a specific key point in time, a perceived "stolen" election.
A new organized opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, with most consolidated
opposition support behind him was waiting in the wings, also with broad
public support and a large group of expert advisers willing and able to
form a new government, and would have had some legitimacy whether they
ultimately won or not at the polls.
The ruling regime headed by Leonid Kuchma held an election which they had
claimed would be free and fair, yet was widely condemned by the outside
world as fraudulent to an extreme. Viktor Yanukovich, his chosen successor,
was declared the winner which was a catalyst sparking massive protests
which continued until the government backed down and conceded to redo the
elections, in effect at the same time, perhaps inadvertently admitting
that the original result was suspect. At the very least, any discrepancy
or downturn in the second election would have been shown to be evidence
of fraud in the first, and the momentum could not help but shift toward
the opposition since the regime was forced to show weakness by allowing
its own official results to be questioned, then thrown out completely by
its Supreme Court full of supposedly loyal-to-the-regime judges. This situation
of a disputed election, an allegedly hard-line regime having to answer
to charges of corruption from its own opposition, from the US, and from
the EU, all together declaring the outcome fraudulent, to say this new
sudden window of opportunity is what catalyzed the public to take to the
streets, then this is quite in agreement with the Political Opportunity
Theory and a shining example of it.
For those who claim the pressure from outside organizations was instrumental
in mobilizing public sentiment against the outcome elections, the Western
press, the European governments and the United States, all disputing the
governments accounting of the vote, though this is not out of line with
the Political Opportunity Theory, it could be conceded to be an outside
factor which influenced the public's willingness to protest believing that
time and history were on their side. However, I feel the key factor in
the success was in the government's inability uphold the legitimacy of
its counting of the vote. If you don't even have the support of a Supreme
Court packed with your own party's appointees, you hardly can claim a mandate
to rule, even if you had won the popular vote. Since it was perceived he
had not won that either, once forced into holding a repeat of the election,
it was clear the regime was all but finished.
But the key factor which may have influenced its Supreme Court of supposed
loyalists to the regime judges to turn against the government which had
appointed them, aside from the possible desire to act in the public good
and do their jobs honestly or perceiving a bigger payoff for jumping ship
and calling for new elections, the deciding factor for them I feel was
the growing crowds of people demanding a recount which was pushing the
country to a brink of civil war, a risk also because the support of each
was centered in a different part of the country and Ukraine remains a "proto-democracy"
(15) with a still emerging sense of nationhood. In such a situation,
control of the military is paramount and Yanukovich could not count on
the loyalty of the military to back him against the growing masses of demonstrators
which he could not have dispersed without that support, and without risking
heavy civilian casualties.
In the Venezuela protests against the coup against Chavez in 2002, similar
motivations were at work and similar calculations were made. Massive street
protests and the coup leaders inability to count on the military to step
in and put down the protests were in my opinion key reasons for the coup's
failure and the return of Chavez to power shortly after the coup. Though
it is not as clear a case of the Political Opportunity Theory in that it
was to restore a leadership, it was perhaps the best and possibly the only
opportunity to act because the coup was quickly gathering outside support
to cement its hold over the country. The United States, which many have
purported to have been behind the coup, denies sponsoring it but also refused
to condemn it while considering recognizing the coup leaders as the legitimate
government. At the very least, they made clear their tactic support of
it by refusing to condemn it. The opportunity to act was sudden, but it
too was as fleeting as the opportunity presented to the people of Ukraine
by the appearance of a tainted election. And it was the public's willingness
to support their elected leadership and the army's refusal to put down
their protests by force which was the turning point in that case as well.
Since the uprising was in support of the recently deposed leadership which
was not considered by the majority of the public to be oppressive, certain
aspects of the Political Opportunity Theory are not applicable, typically
against a long ruling authoritarian system. Yet other aspects of it do
apply. The protests were to restore an about to be deposed popularly elected
leader against an illegitimate one, so in that case it can be considered
as similar to a degree to Ukraine situation, and was aimed at overthrowing
an elite-based system about to retake power possibly for years which they
had thought they had replaced previously in a fair election.
5) Hypothesis 2- Testing A Marxist
Approach
The movement in Venezuela can be seen as being in accordance to what one
would expect from a Marxist point of view. The Proletariat of a country
with an overwhelmingly poor lower class had finally gotten a leadership
which acknowledged their plight by willing to pursue land reforms and other
policies in-line with giving them greater representation in the leadership,
as well as willing to take steps to even out the marked discrepancy between
the rich and the majority which were desperately poor in a country which
was one of the richest in the world in terms of oil and natural resources.
When this government which was both sympathetic to their causes and willing
to take action to help them was overthrown by what a Marxist would call
a Bourgeoisie-based movement to roll back those reforms, the dominant poorer
segments of the society acted in accordance with what one would expect
from their economic status, and rose up in massive protests to overthrow
the opponents of the social reforms.
While it is descriptive to some degree of the situation, it is not entirely
correct. A Marxist approach does not adequately account for, in my opinion,
the importance of personalities. People do not always react purely in accordance
with one would expect based upon their economic positions alone because
of how they perceive the leadership of the movements. Hugo Chavez also
had some support among the wealthier Bourgeoisie, in the middle class because
he was considered a charismatic or liked leader. Likewise, people who are
desperately poor can support right-wing leaderships or dictatorships because
of a strong personality of the leader of the party or government, and the
willingness of the media to constantly sing his praises.
The situation in Ukraine does not lend itself to supporting a Marxist-based
explanation of the events. While also having a large poor population, the
movement in Ukraine did have significant support among the middle-class,
cut across class-based lines, not a class-based action by any means, and
the politicians they were backing were not in advocacy of a grand new specific
program providing a greater degree of social responsibility by the leadership
any more significantly than that which all politicians make, vague promises
to somehow help the poor.
While some were motivated by their desperate economic situations to rise
up against a leadership during which their economic situation markedly
worsened, the "reform" leadership was in favor of steps which would have
the effect of greater privatization, increased ties to what a Marxist's
view would call outside "Bourgeoisie"-based richer countries, all with
the assumption that this would be most beneficial to their economy. In
fact, that greater austerity measures would be needed to bring the country
more in-line with a market-based economy, which would have a significant
negative effect upon the large segment which were poor, these were the
policies advocated by those who much of the poor rebelled in favor of.
Not at all how a Marxist would expect the Proletariat to behave. In many
of the post-Communist societies of Eastern Europe, Socialism and social-based
programs are so discredited, trying to put the events on current politics
in a Marxist-based perspective is difficult because of the public's willingness
to associate any degree of Socialism with their extremely negative past
experiences under oppressive Communist regimes.
6) Conclusion
The Political Opportunity Theory I believe provides the best insight into
why these uprisings and social movements occurred when they did, and why
they were successful. A key component of an opportunity to move away from
a previous type of authoritarian regime lay in times of temporary disarray
and an atypical lessening in ability of the leaderships be able to count
on the support of their military to put down the protests. (16)
The efficacy in the timing of perceived specific opportunities was visibly
present in both cases which told people if they protested at this key specific
point in time they might be successful, and even more importantly, if they
hesitated such an opportunity most certainly might not present itself again
for years to come. Such twin factors, the greater chance for success in
the present, coupled with a visible loss of the opportunity for such a
movement to be successful if the public hesitated and did not act immediately,
this I believe is what caused the movements to occur on a enough of a scale
to be as strong and as effective as they were.
Marxist approaches to current uprisings and social movements are flawed
in my opinion for many reasons beyond the discrediting of Socialism by
the totalitarian and semi-totalitarian states of Eastern Europe. People
just do not always act in accordance with what one would expect based upon
class and their economic situation alone. People are far more nationalistic
than Marx or any Socialist ideologue would care to admit. They may act
in accordance to their own economic best interests or they may act in total
opposition to it supporting, even fervently, leaders and regimes which
are hostile to their best interests, out of nationalism, racism, or any
number of other reasons.
All governments are elite-based and all alternatives offered are generally
also elite-based. Corruption is endemic to having larger numbers of people
ruled by any group. Ideological revolutions, as evidenced by the experiences
of Russian and Eastern European states, often brings in just more excuses
to take that much more away from those who already have next to nothing.
You will lose if you revolt to the left, you will lose if you revolt to
the right. Any structural changes to societies will often benefit most
those who already have the most, as only they will most often always find
a way to profit from, and ride out, the turbulent changes.
Since current governments and leaderships now most often run for reelection
offering no specific well-defined programs, just vague personality-based
campaigns without a clear ideological program to adhere to or run against,
oppositions become left only with the opportunity to win by becoming centered
around a reaction to the perceived greater corruption of the present regime
than they say they would deliver should they obtain power. Anti-corruptionalism,
if it can be called that, is the only ideology left when your government
gives no clear ideological stand to run against, other than to keep things
as they are and defies all attempts to label themselves while labeling
their opponents with whatever is currently the most unpopular labels. Within
a globalized society, whether you are ruled by a so-called democracy, a
monarchy, a dictatorship, or a so-called Communist society, they are in
the end just labels because they all work together on a supra-national
level and all are different pieces of the same pie. The only successful
rallying points left is to decry the corruption within the current administration
and defend those whom you think are less corrupt. With outside help and
support, you may be more likely to have greater opportunities to topple
regimes they don't like either, but most often whether changing regimes
or just changing leaderships, newcomers will inevitably abuse their power
and overstay their welcome eventually. The only question is, how often
will the alternatives offered ever again be real ideologically opposed
alternatives?
1) Skocpol, Theda, , 1980, "The
Uses of Comparative History and Macrosocial Inquiry," Comparative
Studies in Society and History, Nr. 22, Harvard University,
Boston, Pg. 184
2) Tucker, Joshua A., 2005, "Enough!
Electoral Fraud, Collective Action Problems, and the “2nd Wave” of Post-Communist
Democratic Revolutions", Princeton University, Assistant Professor
of Politics and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School and Department
of Politics, www.wws.princeton.edu/jtucker
3) Engdahl, F. William, "Color
Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku Pipeline", Centre for
Research on Globalization,
4) Treanor, James, “Revolutions
in the Former Soviet Union: Second Wave or Something Else?”
Program Brief: A publication of The Nixon Center, Vol. 11, No. 7, Richard
M. Nixon Presidential Library, Washington DC,
5) Lavelle, Peter, Bugajski, Janusz,
Frolov, Vladimir, et. al. "The Specter of “Staglution”
in the Former Soviet Union", www.russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/article.wbp?article-id=12C94421-8461-41A5-B283-357002422C2E
6) 2005, The
World Factbook, USA Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html,
and www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/up.html
7) Evans, Andrew, 2004, Ukraine,
Bradt Travel Guides Ltd., Bucks, Pg. 5
8) 2003, United
Nations Human Development Reports, www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_126_1_1.html
9) 2005, The
World Factbook, USA Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html
10) 2005, "Oil
prices settle below $60 a barrel", ($59.76) Microsoft/NBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612507/
11) 2005, The
World Factbook, USA Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html,
and www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/up.html
12) Times Books, 1997, The
Times Atlas of the World, Bath Press, London, Pg. 30-32
13) Tarrow, Sidney, 1998, Power
in Movement: Social movements and Contentious Politics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Pg. 76-77
14) Tarrow, Sidney, 1998, Power
in Movement: Social movements and Contentious Politics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Pg. 76-77
15) Szporluk, Roman, 2000, Russia,
Ukraine, and The Breakup of the Soviet Union, Hoover Institute
Press, Stanford, Pg. 320
16) Przeworski, Adam, 1991, Democracy
and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin
America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Pg. 67
© 2005 By Jared DuBois |