Continental integration has been a longstanding project in Latin America. It aims to overcome the balkanization that occurred in the wake of independence, which weakens the region geopolitically. This was a goal pursued by Simón Bolivar and José Marti in the 19th century and more recently by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez. In 2004, the latter two joined forces to found The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America – Peoples’ Trade Treaty [ALBA-TCP], which works to build connections among the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. In this interview, we talk with Jorge Arreaza, Secretary of ALBA-TCP, about the past and present of Venezuela’s democratic project and about his hopes for South-South integration.
Let’s begin by exploring the Bolivarian Process’s rich conception of democracy. Could you elaborate on this?
I would begin by agreeing with Barack Obama’s 2015 decree declaring Venezuela to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Of course, Venezuela is not a threat to the US’ national security, but it challenges the capitalist system and the political structures it deploys to dominate the world.
Our democracy is not strictly confined to electoral processes that bring citizens to the ballot box every four years to choose their representatives. Instead, it is practiced daily within communities.
We often mention that there have been 31 electoral processes in Venezuela since the start of the Bolivarian Process, but that is limited to presidential, National Assembly, gubernatorial, and mayoral elections. However, the number is exponentially higher: I don’t have the exact figure, but there have been around 170,000 elections in communes and communal councils from 2006 to 2023. These elections allow communities to select their local governments and make important decisions. They are about self-government.
Additionally, the National Electoral Council [CNE] is authorized to oversee elections for trade unions, worker councils, and university representatives, among others. This means that a union can request support and supervision from the CNE, if it is holding an election.
I believe the world has yet to grasp the profound nature of our democracy. Claims that Venezuela is a tyranny or dictatorship are far from the truth. Comandante Chávez emphasized that the revolution wasn’t about individual leadership but about collective decision-making by millions of people in their communities. His vision was an alternative to the one that allows for an economic elite to reproduce their interests via the liberal bourgeois state.
Chávez first challenged this economic elite by initiating the constituent assembly process [1999] and then by taking control of the oil sector and putting it at the service of the people. That, of course, had consequences, such as the 2002 coup and the 2002-2003 oil sabotage. From that moment forward, power began to be transferred to the organized communities.
Our model undoubtedly threatens liberal democracies, because it is much closer to a true democracy, a democracy where the people freely decide their fate. This challenges the corporative, bipartisan, and monopolistic liberal democracies of the world.
How is the relationship between power and democracy understood in the Bolivarian Process?
Chávez came to the conclusion that power must be given [entregado] to the pueblo so that the pueblo would be able to access the resources needed to transform their reality. According to Enrique Dussel’s principles, power can either dominate or serve. In Venezuela, we believe that political and economic power should serve the people and that it should be exercised by the pueblo within the territory.
In short, these are two antagonistic conceptions of power and democracy.
The aggression against the Bolivarian Process can be traced back at least to the 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez. Can you take us through the various attempts to overthrow Venezuela’s Chavista governments?
Global public opinion has a short memory. What Venezuela is going through now is nothing new. We experienced similar episodes dating back to 2004, when a referendum ratifying Comandante Chávez as our president was followed by the opposition calling fraud. They claimed that they would present proof, but to this day, no evidence has been provided.
The opposition did the same in 2006 when Chávez won by a landslide, and again in 2013 when President Maduro won the presidential elections. There’s a pattern: when they lose, they automatically challenge the National Electoral Council.
In 2018, following orders delivered by their imperialist bosses, the hardline sector of the opposition did not participate in the elections. On top of this, we faced political violence in the streets in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2017, not to mention the 2019 self-appointment of Juan Guaidó as “president” or the drone attack on President Maduro in 2018.
There’s a clear pattern: the imperialists and their local allies are determined to take power by force, bypassing constitutional processes.
It’s the extreme right that called for sanctions on Venezuela, advocated for an international military coalition to invade our country, and even financed a mercenary operation to assassinate our president.
When they do decide to participate in elections, their strategy isn’t electoral. From day one, their objective is to discredit the process, because they can’t accept the new power that has been granted to the Venezuelan people. They seek a shortcut that would not only put them in power but also open the doors to international corporations, while doing away with participative and protagonistic democracy. Because of this history, we were not surprised by the current situation.
Even though our country is enduring the most severe aggressions in its history, President Maduro offered more changes, more transformation, and the deepening of the revolutionary process during his campaign. We have endured political, diplomatic, economic, media, and even military attacks for more than two decades. However, during the campaign, our president went to the street and traveled around the country with a project. Our project is the Simón Bolívar National Plan or the Homeland Plan, now organized around the “Seven Transformations.” Meanwhile, the US-backed opposition’s only plan is to overthrow a sovereign government.
Nicolás Maduro’s campaign was about getting people to vote for a project, but it was done with music and joy. The hard right, on the other hand, had no project to speak of. While we mobilized to get out the vote, the opposition was preparing their “comanditos” [squadrons] to unleash violence after the release of the electoral results. They – or rather, their bosses – prepared technological attacks and used all sorts of dubious polling methods financed by the NED to make the global public think there was no way Nicolás Maduro could actually win.
Despite everything, we approached this election in good faith. Some may think we were naive, but in the end, voter turnout was 60 percent, and the PSUV and other allied parties got 52 percent of the vote, amounting to more than six million votes.
For the opposition to win, participation would have had to be much higher, and all the additional ballots would have had to go their way, but that didn’t happen. Their so-called data claimed a 70-30 victory in their favor. This is absurd: in a polarized country, polls can yield something close to a 50-50 situation, but a difference as large as they claim would be impossible in either direction. In the end, the fact is that Maduro won 52 percent of the vote, and all opposition factions combined received about 48 percent.
All the evidence – including the erratic behavior of the United Nations commission, which posted its report on social media instead of submitting copies to the electoral authorities and the UN Secretary-General, as is customary – points to an international conspiracy aimed at creating a post-truth narrative that presents Venezuela as a failed state.
At the national level, the situation is calm and Chavismo has demonstrated its strength in massive peaceful marches across the country. However, the international situation remains tense. How do you see this?
In 2018 and 2019, we had the support of ALBA countries. Beyond that, Venezuela was practically isolated, and yet the Bolivarian Revolution stood firm. We’ve faced near-total isolation: whenever President Maduro announced his intention to attend a summit, other leaders would threaten to withdraw their participation. They demonized him, accused him of leading a drug cartel in a New York district court, and even attempted to assassinate him!
While the world may be shocked by what’s happening, for us, it’s just another day. We know how to deal with this situation and how to overcome it.
But here’s the thing: if the Western world, which unfortunately is where we are geographically located, needs to maintain its hegemony; if the main Western power, the US, needs the oil, gas, and other resources; and if Venezuela has those resources plus a democratic system that serves the people’s interests and not corporate ones, then it should be no surprise that the imperialists will try to discredit us, isolate us, and attack us. Our task is to stand firm, as Cuba has done for so many years. We have to defend our sovereignty.
You are now the Secretary of ALBA-TCP. Could you tell us more about this powerful initiative that Chávez launched in 2004?
The Alliance was conceived as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas [FTAA], which was essentially an expansionist, colonizing initiative led by Washington. The FTAA [George W. Bush initiative] would have increased dependency and stripped Latin American countries of their sovereignty. But the FTAA went beyond that: it aimed to reshape national institutions, including the armed forces of each participating country.
The only leader who challenged the FTAA proposal at the “4th Summit of the Americas” [2005] in Mar del Plata was Hugo Chávez. Shortly after, during the counter-summit, Comandante Chávez proposed the creation of a continental ALBA agreement. The idea and the first steps had come out of an agreement signed between Fidel and Chávez in 2004, but the project had to grow.
ALBA is a project that aims to reactivate Simón Bolívar’s vision, which was not about integrating the continent’s elites but about uniting its peoples. In that spirit, ALBA is about governments and pueblos building a common agenda to advance toward unity.
ALBA is a space for integration that places people, families, and communities at its center. While ALBA operates in a social and economic realm, it’s not a typical customs union, a common external tariff agreement, or a space aimed at increasing trade within the existing parameters. ALBA is a different kind of union.
Today, in the BRICS alliance, there’s talk of de-dollarization, developing alternative currencies, and having its own bank. Almost two decades ago, Chávez was ahead of the curve with the creation of the Banco del ALBA and the introduction of the Sucre currency as a means of exchange. However, what truly sets ALBA apart is its social character, reflected in the number of social movements and organized communities associated with it. This is a unique feature of ALBA.
When Venezuela joined Mercosur, Chávez emphasized the need to reform the project and infuse it with a social dimension. Similarly, CELAC was conceived as a project to advance Bolívar’s dream of continental integration.
All these are relevant precedents, when it comes to thinking about the BRICS.
Returning to ALBA, it should be clear by now that it is much more than just the ten member countries and the social movements associated with it. ALBA embodies humanity’s shared dream of a world of equals living in peace and unity.
It’s no secret that ALBA has lost some momentum compared to its early days. However, it seems that there is a reactivation underway. Is this the case?
The attacks on Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua in recent years have undoubtedly affected the effectiveness of the Alliance. Petrocaribe, an integral part of ALBA, has also been significantly impacted by the US blockade. Now that Venezuela’s economy and oil production are recovering, ALBA and Petrocaribe are getting stronger once again.
It’s undeniable that ALBA is the only regional forum on this continent that speaks with a unified voice. The Organization of American States [OAS], a colonial mechanism, is grappling with internal issues, UNASUR has been dismantled, and the CAN [Andean Community] is a distant memory. Meanwhile, Mercosur is tangled in endless debates about whether or not to sign a free trade agreement with the European Union.
Even though the imperialist siege has affected ALBA, it remains the only mechanism in our region with a distinct, unified voice. Its governments meet regularly and it has its own financing mechanism, the ALBA Bank, which I mentioned earlier.
Not only have we resisted, but we’ve also made progress during these challenging times. Would ALBA have advanced more quickly and become more robust if we hadn’t been attacked? Undoubtedly. But we’re still here, and we haven’t been silenced or dissolved!
To understand an entity like ALBA, it’s useful to know the programs and initiatives it offers. Could you elaborate on that?
ALBA has had a significant impact in various areas. For example, it has facilitated over six million cataract surgeries, provided literacy programs to a similar number of people, and integrated millions into alternative education systems. These programs extend beyond the ten ALBA countries.
Additionally, ALBA has promoted productive projects based on complementarity rather than competition. Through Petrocaribe, ALBA has supported infrastructure projects like bridges, roads, and hospitals. A significant portion of the reconstruction of Port-au-Prince after the [2010] earthquake, was funded by ALBA.
I should emphasize that when ALBA offers assistance, it does so without expecting anything in return, without incurring debt. The sole aim of providing well-being, health, knowledge, and dignity.
US imperialism isn’t about to collapse, but it faces a crisis of hegemony as demonstrated by the emergence of alternatives such as BRICS. How do you view these initiatives as the secretary of ALBA-TCP?
BRICS is a manifestation of the emerging multipolar world. As the productive and financial influence of the US wanes, some important global players are no longer willing to let a weakened Washington dictate global rules.
When you look at BRICS, there’s an interesting alignment with the goals that ALBA proposed some 20 years ago. I believe that Venezuela, and ALBA more broadly, can contribute our experience, knowledge, and resources to enhance BRICS.
However, it’s important to note that BRICS is still in its early stages. It lacks institutional norms and clear entry procedures. Much work has to be done so that BRICS doesn’t become just another undefined initiative.
From ALBA’s perspective, the path is clear. BRICS should be about true democracy and the liberation of the peoples of the world.
Within ALBA member countries, particularly in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Honduras, you’ll find different conceptions of socialism, and this diversity is good. However, we are certain that humanity must choose between emergent fascism, which leads to death and destruction, and a post-capitalist, socialist path, which ALBA embodies.