Forum on Venezuela

Forum on Venezuela

Differing views on the defeat of constitutional reforms championed by President Hugo Chávez from Mark Weisbrot, Sujatha Fernandes, Chesa Boudin, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl and Greg Grandin.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

On December 2, by a slim 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent margin, Venezuelans rejected a slate of sixty-nine constitutional reforms championed by President Hugo Chávez. Fiercely debated in Venezuela, the referendum sparked a spirited discussion among our contributors.

Many of Chávez's proposals–lowering the voting age; prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, race or disability; expanding social security; shortening the workweek; and requiring gender parity in candidates for elected office–were greatly admired. Other measures–such as the elimination of term limits on the presidency and the expansion of executive power to declare a state of emergency–were less well received.

In many mainstream media outlets, commentators worried about Chávez's emerging "dictatorship" and cheered the referendum's defeat as a triumph for democracy. Looking beyond such rhetoric, many of our contributors have different interpretations of the most controversial reforms, although some are critical of not only their substance but the manner in which they were presented to the Venezuelan people.

What forces drove the opposition to Chávez's reforms? What does the referendum's defeat mean for the future of the Bolivarian revolution? And what did the majority of the US press get wrong (or right) about the vote in Venezuela? Our forum contributors, representing a range of perspectives, tackle these and other questions. They are:

Mark Weisbrot: Progressive Change in Venezuela

Sujatha Fernandes: What Does the 'No' Vote Mean?

Chesa Boudin: A Silver Lining for the Bolivarian Revolution

Elisabeth Young-Bruehl: Behind the Student Movement's Victory

Greg Grandin: Chavismo and Democracy

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x