Chavez and his comrades won the highest level of political power nominally, but the state they won is the same old state below that level: "The State changed at the macro level, but the micro levels of it have stayed intact. It will be necessary to think right now about a new package of laws, transformation of the political and legal framework all the way down to the most micro levels of the State, to overcome that resistance" ("Diario Panorama's Exclusive Interview with President Chávez (I): 'The Greatest Threat to the Revolution Is Within,'" <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/chavez261106.html>). Moreover, multiple parties of the Left involved in the Bolivarian process, according to Michael A. Lebowitz, all practice clientelism of their own. Last but not the least, social relations in civil society are still fundamentally capitalist relations: that is why, even though the state under Chavez expanded social welfare programs and public works projects in the form of cooperatives, and the poor did get a little better off than before, "The gap between an enriched elite and the lower classes, instead of narrowing, has widened" ("Diario Panorama's Exclusive Interview with President Chávez (I): 'The Greatest Threat to the Revolution Is Within,'" <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/chavez261106.html>). The desire of the Venezuelan people to concentrate power in the hands of Chavez is rooted in these three problems, I think -- in other words, they want to give charismatic power to Chavez and use it in order to bypass new and old bureaucratic authorities blocking revolutionary transformation of the state and society.
I, too, hope that the Venezuelan people, sometime in the near future, will not need Chavez, allowing him to become a charming geezer in retirement and that they will develop a new type of collective power, led by women.
> I'm just waiting for a continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty to drive
> more people into radical alternatives. I can't imagine what it must be
> like for the younger generations who have only known Presidents Clinton
> or Bush. I'm 41 and this system is insufferable enough. I remember when
> polls found that Nixon was one of the most feared and hated man in
> history. Now he looks like an angel after Reagan, two Bushs, and Clinton I.
>
> Can we arrange a mass execution of media people who insist on inflicting
> us with all this news about the 2008 elections?
In 2004, I ended up being guilty of electoralism myself, for I was keen on having at least one anti-war vehicle in the general elections -- Nader/Camejo -- after the caucuses and primaries. No electoralism on the Left this time, I hope.
The Iraqi elections, as well as the 2004 US elections, demonstrate how divisive bourgeois electoral processes themselves -- not just bourgeois political parties -- can be and how destructive of social movements they are. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>