December 1, 2002
Social movements are sectoral movements and require an instrument for
articulation
Manuel Alberto Ramy
Progreso Weekly
(Editor's Note: This interview was conducted before the Sunday
victory in Ecuador by Lucio Gutierrez.)
If I say she received her degree in psychology in Paris, or she was
an advance student of Louis Althusser -- who 30 years ago wrote the
foreword for her first book - I've said something, but at the same
time hardly anything. If I then add that she returned from France to
the effervescent, and tragic, Chile of Salvador Allende, and that she
taught at the university and edited the magazine Chile Today -- the
only leftist weekly that existed during that very special moment -- I
would then be telling you more about her. But in my judgment, the
core issue is, the woman seated before me perceives with her eyes the
heartbeat of an immense continent: Latin America.
Marta Harnecker, as she is named, speaks deliberately and has a
deceivingly peaceable glance. There are moments, fleeting but
perceptible, when she can't repress the fire of her ideas and her
cause. She has worn out several pairs of shoes walking up and down
and investigating the many turns of our region. She has interviewed
first-class political leaders and also (with the sharpness of a
humanistic intellectual) ordinary people and independents. A product
of her travels and contacts are her numerous books and published
articles. In them, she coldly analyzes the realities and perspectives
of our people.
But Marta Harnecker does not burn-out herself writing and making
contacts. In Havana, Cuba, she runs a center called Popular Latin
American Memory (MEPLA), where she collects the creations,
experiences and lives of our people in recent years. Painstakingly,
she brings together the past, the present and the future. And she
bets on the latter "because I'm an optimistic person."
She has just returned from a tour of our region and a long stay in
Venezuela. A product of her presence there is her latest book,
already released in Spain. It is a long interview she had with
President Chávez; probably the most complete interview anyone has had
with a man who rules the destiny of a country that is key to our
continent.
Progreso Weekly (PW): Can you give us a synthesis of Latin America today?
Marta Harnecker (MH): I think we're living in a new stage, a stage
when the struggle against neoliberalism is on the increase in the
continent. Three years ago we couldn't imagine what is happening
today. At that time we began to see the triumph of an unknown
military officer, Hugo Chávez, who won the presidential election in
Venezuela. Recently, Lula triumphed in Brazil, and now I think that
Lucio Gutiérrez is going to win the election in Ecuador. Next in line
is the election in Uruguay, where it seems clear that Tabaré Vázquez
will win. All this is creating a possibility, perhaps for the first
time since Bolívar, of a Latin American articulation different from
the one that has existed until now.
PW: What distinguishes this articulation you refer to?
MH: These governments - I refer to Venezuela and to Lula's in Brazil
- are looking to apply a model that differs from the current
neoliberal globalization. Their fundamental hope is to develop the
domestic market, without denying that there are sectors of the
economy that will remain part of the current globalization. With so
much potential and with such a large market, they hope to produce for
their people, and to establish regional accords, that will permit
them to deal effectively with the present world situation, which is
so complicated for our countries.
PW: As regards Latin America, where does your "so complicated" world
situation lie?
MH: Today, the socialist camp that used to put the brakes on the
United States' imperial cravings no longer exists. Today, only one
imperial power will decide to wage war on Iraq because it clearly has
military superiority. This is the world in which Latin America is
moving today. Regardless, the neoliberal model has proved to be so
incapable of satisfying the needs of our people that the people have
rebelled and have elected candidates who represent the hope for a
different world. People in Latin America reject a world that promotes
wealth for a few and deepens the poverty of the majority.
PW: Do you think we are at a period of popular resistance?
MH: Yes. We're at a stage where the governments we have mentioned
above will first try to brake the advance of neoliberalism, but we
must understand that these are governments with limited programs;
governments that cannot formulate a deep transformation from one day
to the other. The first step is to create the conditions. As
President Chávez says, we must build an international force that will
allow us to create these alternative programs.
PW: How do you define the Latin American Left at this time?
MH: Well, you know that defining the Left is complicated. I believe
that we need to change the definition of Left that existed in times
past, when we used to think that the Left was the same as
revolutionary, was the same as Marxist, was the same as political
party. I have a definition in a recent book titled The Left After
Seattle, where I maintain that being a leftist means to fight or be
committed to a societal project that opposes the capitalist logic of
profit-making and that seeks to build a society with a humanistic
logic.
It doesn't matter if people are members of parties or social
movements or if they are independent actors or not. Their core belief
must be a point of view that differs from capitalism. I believe that
that is the Left, which goes far beyond a party, of course. It's very
interesting to see how today the principal worldwide manifestation of
a call to forces of this type comes from the World Social Forum,
based in a Latin American country.
PW: Doesn't the fact that the Forum is based in Latin America
represent another sign of the times in which we live?
MH: Yes, and that's interesting, because in the 1990s Latin America
ceased to exist, from the European viewpoint. Today, all eyes of the
Left or the world's progressive sectors are fixed on events in Latin
America. We are once again protagonists of history and that is why
the Social Forum is based in Porto Alegre, the capital of the
Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre is the oasis of
the Latin American Left.
PW: Why is this oasis precisely in Latin America?
MH: Because the Left here has been capable of demonstrating a
different political practice. Today there is great skepticism toward
politics and politicians. People no longer trust them, first, because
the speeches from the Right and from the Left are so similar. The
Right has appropriated the language of the Left, but at the same
time, and unfortunately, some spokesmen for the Left who have
achieved positions in government have a political practice not very
different from the traditional parties. If our people hear identical
political speeches and see identical political practices, a
skepticism is created that will be reflected most strongly among the
young.
PW: Do you have a fresh example of the skepticism/youth relationship?
MH: In Chile, for example, a country with 12 or 13 million
inhabitants, three years ago there were 800,000 young people who did
not register to vote. Now can we say that those young people have no
concerns and that the young people of my generation, in the 1970s and
'80s, were more committed, more revolutionary or more full of fight,
and that this generation is indifferent?
I believe this skepticism toward the politics of politicians reflects
a revolt; a rejection of these speeches that never achieve reality.
That's the reason why, paradoxically, Che [Guevara] continues to
attract people so many years after his death and after he failed in
his guerrilla attempt. And why does Che attract people? I think it's
because he represents coherence between thought and action, and young
people are attracted by that type of image.
PW: Does that also explain why popular social movements have risen in
Latin America, not the political parties of the Left? Does it explain
why the traditional parties of the Left have collapsed along with the
total crisis of the political system?
MH: The crisis of neoliberalism has made our people react and
sometimes that reaction has lacked coordination with the parties.
Many of these parties, although they've been successful in the
institutional plane and have gained seats in Parliament and in local
governments, have distanced themselves from social movements. The
struggle of resistance to neoliberalism often has been waged without
any coordination with the parties. In fact, the very initiative of
the World Social Forum came from the social movements and the
nongovernmental organizations.
PW: Do social movements replace political parties as such?
MH: I will take advantage of this question to clarify that I am not
against political instruments, because sometimes when one criticizes
parties, people think one is betting on the emergence of movements
that will lead the struggle. Social movements are sectoral movements
and require an instrument for articulation, call it party,
sociopolitical movement, front, or whatever. But what's needed are
political instruments that articulate and raise a national proposal,
that make an ideological proposal in today's world, where the wars
are fought in the plane of ideas, where the means of communication in
the hands of the powerful are almost overpowering. We can see what is
happening with the media in Venezuela. I don't want to say they are
totally overpowering, because if I said that there wouldn't be any
chance to struggle.
I think that a different political practice - as is taking place in
Porto Alegre, Brazil, a transparent, non corrupted practice that is
specially concerned with the poorest people and delegates power to
the people -, produces a critical gap in the messages from
television, because if you're looking at an event and the media
broadcast something else, you develop a critical consciousness. If
that weren't so, we would be defeated, and I am a person who -
despite the correlation of forces at this time - is optimistic.
PW: In a few days, we'll see the final elections for President of
Ecuador. Will Lucio Gutiérrez win?
MH: In my opinion, yes. I think so, because I understand that Roldós
and Borges are not going to vote for Noboa. That is totally
contradictory to their historic positions.
PW: When you talk about democracy, how do you see it? Which democracy
do you talk about? Where does it come from?
MH: To me, democracy is not decreed from above. Democracy requires a
cultural transformation; can only be built with the participation of
people and for that you need democratic practices. You need a
democratic growth among people, which is what's happening in various
aspects, on the part of this Left, which is broader than the Left of
the past. That development has been happening in different places.
And our center, MEPLA (Latin-American Popular Memory) has been
spreading these interesting alternative experiences.
That's why we did a documentary about Porto Alegre, about the
experience of the participative budget, and that's why we're now
showing the documentary about the Movement of the Landless in Brazil,
one of the most significant social movements of the continent, if not
of the world. This movement, while not the most powerful at present,
has an enormous discipline, democratic practice and educational
effort. And that is why we have studied Cuban community experiences
where the grassroots are protagonistic participants.
PW: Venezuela is going through an important period. How do you
evaluate the situation and what outlook do you see for the process
led by Hugo Chávez?
MH: I just got back from there. You can't believe what the media say.
The general balance of the situation is very different from the image
given abroad. For example, a radio station reported about events in
Altamira Square, where the putschist military officers have gathered.
People abroad say: What? New putschists? The media don't say that
they are the same ones as before, those who the courts (the courts of
justice today are a political, anti-Chávez group) declared not
putschists, even though everyone saw them on television assuming the
power on April 11.
PW: Do you foresee a likely coup d'état?
MH: No, first because the surprise factor does not exist today. On
April 11, they surprised Chávez and the army. Second, after seeing
what Carmona and a handful of the putschists did, the opposition has
split, because not all the opposition is fascist. There is a fascist
sector and a sector that would like Chávez to leave by the democratic
route. They are divided. Besides, they have no national leader or
plan. Well, they didn't have it before, either.
April 11 unmasked the actors and the people began to see who's who.
This allows a politicization of the people in the sense they can
understand the national situation. Chávez and the other leaders have
insisted on the need to increasingly organize themselves, because
April 11 represented the triumph of a people who came out in defense
of their president, along with the armed forces, most of which, with
the exception of the putschist generals, sided with Chávez. But that
organization was still in its infancy.
Six months have elapsed since the coup and that organization has
grown daily. Not only that, the people's spirit of unity has grown.
People are realizing that there is an enemy and that they have to
articulate, join forces and put aside all petty differences. At that
time, the parties of the Left were very critical of some things but
not of others, but - well, Chávez is not perfect, the process is not
perfect. It has many weaknesses. But at the time, criticism was
rampant.
PW: So, has criticism from the Left stopped?
MH: No, but the important thing is to fight to consolidate the
process under Chávez's leadership. From the point of view of the
leftist political parties, that has helped a lot to unify people
around the figure of Chávez. Also, sectors of the middle-class layers
- that were won over for the anti-Chávez project, among other things
by a speech the president gave that was directed at the people in the
poor neighborhoods and was very hurtful for those sectors, an
attitude the president himself acknowledged was a mistake - after the
events of April, are rejoining the process.
PW: Including the middle class?
MH: Well, I'm talking about the middle class; I'm talking about
professionals. There was a meeting between professionals and Chávez
about a month or so ago. The doctors are organizing, because there
was a terrible boycott by the health-care people. Since April 11, the
president has changed his language. After he returned, he said
self-criticism was in order. Everyone was to blame somehow for what
had happened and he could acknowledge his mistakes. Chávez returned
to the presidency with conciliatory language, which the radical Left
finds difficult to understand. He's making a big effort to bring
people together, and I think that the strategy is to not alienate, to
call for dialogue, something that has been recognized by the
Organization of American States.
PW: Some people opine that the presence of the OAS is negative for Chávez.
MH: When Carter and his commission came over, I remember hearing
people say: "How can they invite Carter? The OAS is going to come
over and as soon as the OAS arrives everything will be over." As it
turns out, the process is so democratic that even the OAS has had to
acknowledge it. The fact it was a process recognized worldwide as
being democratic is very important to prevent interventions from
abroad to eradicate [Chávez], because there are no arguments to
intervene.
Now I say that if Chávez wanted to lead an insurrection today, he
would have the strength to do it. That is, the people and the army at
this moment would permit a victorious insurrection. The problem is
what will happen tomorrow. I think he's sufficiently mature to
understand the correlation of forces in which he finds himself and to
understand that insurrection would not be the solution.
PW: If as a result of this dialogue with the opposition, the
government agreed to call early elections, do you think Chávez's
Fifth Republic Movement would win?
MH: First of all, he's not going to agree to that. He cannot allow
one sector of society to call for elections when the whole of society
has expressed itself in a democratic manner, both now and earlier.
That would mean that at any time a minority could destroy the entire
strategy of construction that exists in a country. There is a time
schedule. A revocatory referendum is due in a few months, in August.
What Chávez is saying is: "Let's go to the revocatory referendum, but
don't ask for a consultative referendum because it doesn't exist in
our Constitution." I think Chávez has the support of the people to
win the election, of course. The problem is that one can't submit to
the strategy of the right.
Marta Harnecker is a psychologist and a journalist. Her latest book
is "Hugo Chávez Frías, a Man, a Nation."
Manuel Alberto Ramy is editor of the Spanish-language page of
Progreso Weekly and Havana correspondent for Radio Progreso
Alternativa.
copyright © 2002 Progreso Weekly, Inc.
<http://www.rebelion.org/harnecker/ramy011202.htm>
--
Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus:
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>