Last night I dreamt that Subcomandante Marcos (the elusive Zapatista leader) was running against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. I often have really bizarre dreams when I fall asleep to the BBC World Service (I know it’s a bad habit, but the cricket scores always send me right off to sleep). However as a psychiatrist, I know a classic wish fulfilment dream when I see one. I have to admit that Marcos has always been a bigger than life figure to me (second only to Super Barrio – see July 14 blog). He seems to have made all the right decisions about not pursuing either public office or media attention. In fact this is the reason he gives for the masks worn by EZLN – to protect themselves, not from right wing assassins, but from the temptation to be corrupted by the public spotlight.

 

Despite the massive improvements Chavez has made in the lives of the indigenous people of Venezuela, I personally feel that their socialist revolution will only become permanent when the people themselves run it. I’m not naïve, though. I know how extremely oppressive the forces of neoliberalism are in the third world. That sometimes it only becomes possible for the disenfranchised to self-organize when someone like Chavez comes along to give them some breathing space – by taking the boot of the international corporate elite off their necks. And clearly Chavez has done so – against enormous odds and at great personal risk. By nationalizing oil revenues and reneging on IMF debt repayments, he has substantially reduced unemployment, as well as providing food security, universal education and healthcare and increase life expectancy for Venezuela’s majority indigenous population – including improved nutrition, health and overall life expectancy. Let’s face it – the old Venezuelan regime was a death trap for literally millions of people.

Because of its decentralized nature, the EZLN has a website but no “official” spokesperson. However several Zapista leaders have contrasted Chavez’s presidency somewhat unfavourably with that of Latin America’s first indigenous president Evo Morales. They note that despite major political and economic reforms, as well as major government support for self-organizing initiatives (including pirate radio and self-sustaining housing and communal councils and cooperatives), all these reforms have occurred from the top down. Whereas Evo represents bottom up power. He won the presidency based on the strength of Bolivia’s popular movements, which had deposed three presidents in four years. And Evo understands exactly where his power comes from – that he has no chance of remaining in office unless he remains accountable to the base that elected him.

Is It a Male Thing?

The other thing that bothers me about Chavez is that absence of any succession planning. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation why only Chavez is capable of preserving socialism in Venezuela. And as a woman and feminist, I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t a male thing. When women are alone, they often talk about a strong male tendency (of their husbands in particular) to self-aggrandizement. I don’t believe men are born this way. It seems to me that modern society socializes them to get bigger than life in their own heads. This seems to be born out in a number of studies contrasting female with male leadership styles (many related to the 2006 Norwegian law mandating 40% female representation on corporate boards see April 19 blog). One factor that stands out in most studies is that women tend to have a more inclusive – as opposed to autocratic – style of leadership.

One thing that has always impressed me about the Zapatistas is the role indigenous women have played, via sustained self-organizing, to ensure that the EZLN is as much about women’s right to self-determination as the indigenous struggle for political and economic rights.

Women have always had a powerful voice in both the civilian and military arm of EZLN – not because Marcos or any other male leader has given it to them. Because they have organized and demanded it.

---