Yale Holds Conference On Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution

Venezuela
and its President Hugo Chavez may be confusing to those only following the
mainstream media's reporting of recent events. 
In an attempt to overcome such mystification, last week Yale
University's Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies hosted a conference
focused on Venezuela and its so-called Bolivarian Revolution.  The conference, held just days before the
controversial Constitutional Referendum, was organized by historians Greg
Grandin of New York
University and Yale's Gil
Joseph.  Titled, "Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution at Home and
Abroad," the conference brought together scholars, politicians, filmmakers, and
activists to take a deeper look at Venezuela and its leader Hugo
Chavez.  Professor Gil said the event was
organized to foment discussion and debate and not to promote one side or
another.  "The organizers of this event,
panelists and attendees reflect a real diversity of views."

The daylong event was split into three sections.  While introducing the first panel Professor
Grandin gave an introduction on recent Venezuelan history and referred to the
timeliness of the event due to the elections. 
He then joked that Chavez has been in the headlines so often that it
seems that anytime you talk about Venezuela it is timely. The morning panel
focused on Venezuela's role internationally and honed in on the viability of
its ambitious social programs at home and abroad.  Thad Dunning, political science professor at
Yale, argued that the successes of the Bolivarian Revolution, while impressive,
are dangerously reliant on high oil prices. 
"I fear that a rather brutal day of reckoning may arise in Venezuela
when oil prices come down, and this development will affect the government's
foreign policy." Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo
Alvarez Herrera was on the program but was called away at the last minute due
to the diplomatic disputed that recently erupted between Venezuela and
Colombia. 

The afternoon panel, which looked at the domestic themes,
consisted of Sujatha Fernandes, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Queens
College, Francisco Rodriguez, Assistant Professor of Economics and Latin
American Studies at Wesleyan University, and Mark Weisbrot of the Washington
D.C. based think-tank Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).  Professor Fernandes led the panel with a
discussion on the important role that social movements have played in directing
the path of the Bolivarian Revolution. Her work in Venezuela,
similar to her previous work in Cuba,
has ties to the hip-hop community and looks at the important contribution
grassroots movements have made in helping shape the political conversation. A
lively debate followed, providing the audience with an opportunity for some
public debate on these complicated issues.

The third panel began with a documentary entitled "Puedo
Hablar" ("May I Speak.")  The film was
shot over a two-month period surrounding the December 2006 elections.  The film touches on the deep divisions in
Venezuelan society and also suggests that the political gap could be
bridged.  Filmmaker Christopher Moore fielded questions with NYU Professor
Alejandro Velasco acting as the moderator. Professor Velasco recently finished
his dissertation, which looked at the political period prior to Chavez, known
as the Punto Fijo era.  This conversation
focused more so than any of the day on the possibilities of plurality in the
country's future.  

The event closed with a few final words by the
organizers. "We don't really learn about what is happening in Venezuela from
the media. We have a record here at Yale for these public forums and it is
important that this reach beyond specialists on Venezuela," said Prof. Joseph.
Prof. Grandin added, "What is clear from the
reading the press in the United States
is that there is an inverse correlation between time spent talking or writing
about Venezuela
and critical thinking. At the very least, the intelligent debate and commentary
generated by this conference demonstrated that one can have an intelligent
discussion about the possibilities and limits of Chavismo, one that stands in
sharp contrast to the shrill alarmism found in the major media."