Page 10

<!--venez-->

Land reform battle deepens

by Federico Fuentes Responding to the latest hysterical campaign being led by the right-wing media and big business, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stated on September 25, 2005, on his weekly Alo, Presidente TV program that “a small group ... of lackeys of imperialism who have television stations, newspapers … are trying to set the country on fire”. Claiming that the right to private property is coming under greater threat, the media and key organisations of big business have begun to manufacture a scare campaign that some have likened to that which preceded the December 2002 bosses’ strike. What has triggered this latest round of attacks, including shots being fired at agriculture minister Antonio Albarran’s home, are the moves by the Chavez government to push forward on land reform. Over the last few weeks, a number of large unused tracts of land owned by latifundistas (big landowners) were taken over by the National Guard in order to begin the process of its redistribution to landless peasants — giving land to those who want to work it. Basing itself on the Land and Agrarian Development Law, which forces all latifundistas who have land-holdings that are 80% unused to prove their title to this land, the National Institute of Land (INTI) has begun to move against 21 latifundistas. These big landowners control 612,289 hectares of land. At the same time, 15 ranches that have been used to run drug-smuggling operations have been confiscated. In his October 2 Alo, Presidente broadcast from La Marquesena, one of the latifundia currently in dispute, Chavez said: “Those who refuse to abandon their land will be removed by the Venezuelan military, because they have to respect the laws and the government.” Referring to land ownership, Chavez said that under his government “things will change, or I will die trying to change it”. Despite right-wing hysteria about “private property”, the central issue at stake — land reform — gets to the heart of the struggle of the Venezuelan poor majority for justice. Many of today’s ideas of the Bolivarian revolution’s agrarian reform are based on the ideas of Ezequiel Zamora, who coined the phrase “free land and man”. Zamora fought unsuccessfully in the 19th century for the redistribution of land to the peasants. Chavez’s government has resumed this same fight. On December 10, 2001, Chavez went to Santa Ines, the site of one of the famous battles for independence led by Zamora, and declared the enactment of a new land law. The day of the promulgation of the new law sparked the first major national “strike” organised by the right-wing opposition. Jose Luis Betancourt, now president of the employers’ federation Fedecamaras, publicly ripped up the bill on a live broadcast transmitted by all the private television stations. A battle has raged since that time, with the latifundistas attempting a number of measures to block its implementation. In November 2002, Betancourt was able, through a Supreme Court ruling, to deal a big blow to the land law. The Supreme Court, at that time narrowly controlled by opposition supporters, declared two articles of the law unconstitutional. The removal of the two articles, 89 and 90, made illegal the pre-emptive occupation of land by landless peasants, and forced the government to give compensation for investments made by landowners on land taken from them by the government, including for investments made on stolen land. Following this, the latifundistas increased their violent attacks on campesino (peasant) leaders and cooperative members. Since the new land law was introduced, 145 campesino leaders have been murdered. So far, not a single person has been put in jail for these crimes, which have primarily been carried out by hired paramilitaries of the latifundistas. Before Chavez was first elected president in 1998, 75% of agricultural land, generally the most fertile, was owned by five per cent of the country’s 25 million people, while 75% of agricultural landowners shared six per cent of arable land. By the end of 2004, at least 2 million hectares had been redistributed to 100,000 families, but nearly all of it was idle, state-owned land. In a September 26 report on Venezuelanalysis.com, Gregory Wilpert noted that “it was not until early 2005 that the Chavez government turned its attention to privately held land … The land reform plan for 2005 has been named ‘Mission Zamora’, so as to indicate that it is another of the government’s social programs, which, since 2003, all carry the title of ‘Mission’.” The National Assembly, Venezuela’s parliament, modified the land law in April 2005, in effect reintroducing the two articles struck down by the Supreme Court in 2001. The new phase of the government’s agrarian reform project, dubbed the “war to the death against the latifundista”, is directly challenging the old ruling elite’s control over land. Despite the elite’s hysteria, far from denying the right to private property, the government is extending it to large numbers of poor people, those who have never had any productive property. The government has made it clear that anyone who can prove their legal title to the land they claim will not have it confiscated. In the case of lands that have been confiscated so far, none of the so-called owners have been able to prove their legal title to the land. In many cases, these were large tracts of state-owned land that were occupied and then passed down along the family line but never legally acquired. In cases where land ownership can be proven, the government has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate with the land holder to discuss how they can work together to increase production. The government is handing over land titles to peasant cooperatives to work the land, and is working to provide cheap credit, training and equipment to the cooperatives. Despite the media frenzy, the recent actions have not gone beyond what is generally accepted as the right to private property. However, the opposition has tried to whip up its ever-decreasing support among sections of the middle class with the fear that they could lose their houses, cars and other personal possessions. What the big capitalists who fund and lead the opposition really fear is that the deepening of the land reform project is directly attacking the structures of economic domination upon which they have based their political rule over the country. Their control over large swathes of productive land has contributed to the neocolonial status of Venezuela, forcing the country to rely on importing 75% of its food supply. The land reform is helping to strengthen the social base of the Bolivarian revolution by attempting to improve the conditions of life for the poor, most of whom live in the city barrios. However, the number of assassinations, plus the slowness of the land reform process shows that while the Bolivarian revolution has control of the old state structures and progressive laws to back its actions, the relationship of class forces in the countryside has not been decisively shifted to the advantage of the working people. A contributing factor in this has been the weakness of self-organisation among the campesinos. At the first national congress of the National Campesino Front Ezequiel Zamora (FNCEZ), on September 9-11, campesinos expressed their frustration at the problems they have had in forming cooperatives. Many said they lacked adequate training and the necessary political education. There have also been problems with corruption and ineptness in the government institution overseeing the land reform, which has contributed to frustrations. One story was that of Carlos Perez. He spoke on behalf of 1527 graduates of Mission Vuelvan Caras, who had formed themselves into 36 cooperatives, of which 21 were agricultural cooperatives. Six months after doing so, they still had no decent land to work on and were unable to get any loans for technical equipment because of this lack of land. Like other aspects of the revolution, the struggle to advance the land reform program is tied to the crucial struggle to tackle corruption, bureaucracy and to deepen popular power so that the poor themselves — who are the sector with the vested interest in implementing social change — can ensure the revolution continues moving forward. From Green Left Weekly, October 12, 2005.