Racism is another factor that Chavez is addressing. Some of his opponents dislike his face and his skin color, and his insistence that black and Indian Venezuelans are as much a part of the nation as whites.

Despite the great oil wealth, poverty and racism were never challenged until Chavez. Two periods of dictatorship in the 20th century were both strongly supported by the United States. Afterwards came 40 years of rule shared by two elitist parties that had made a compact to take turns winning elections. Some 60% of the population had no say in politics. There was deep resentment, part of it directed at the U.S. The bottle burst in 1989 when prices suddenly went up because the government, pressured by the U.S., adopted an economic "austerity program." It fell more upon the poor than the rich, and they went straight out into the streets in massive numbers, some protesting peacefully and others looting and burning

Hugo Chavez arrived on the scene seemingly from out of nowhere in 1992, when he led an unsuccessful attempt at a coup d'état. Appearing on TV, his one-minute concession speech went straight to the heart of the poor, largely because he said something unprecedented in Venezuelan politics: he accepted full responsibility for what had gone wrong. A Venezuelan friend who is a strong supporter of Chavez told us he never heard of the man until that speech, but when he heard it he thought to himself, "That is the man that we need."

In 1998 Chavez stood for election and won the presidency with 56% of the vote. But in 2002 the U.S. tried to unseat him by supporting a coup staged by people in the oil industry and a few generals. The coup lasted only 2 days because the people again took to the streets. The army found itself in between those generals and its fellow citizens in the streets. Most of the officers chose to side with the people, and the coup was over.

The United States was behind two other attempts to get rid of Chavez that year, both focused on wrecking the economy. Because of this and the previous history, many of the Venezuelan people despise and fear the U.S. government, especially under Bush; and they fear what the U.S. may do next. They are trying to find freedom from poverty, freedom from political impotence, and freedom from control by the U.S.

We interviewed members of the opposition to Chavez. They want more debate about the sweeping changes that are being made, and they ask:

• " Is it right to say that democracy must include economic justice as well as free elections?
• " Also, what is this "Socialism for the 21st Century" that Chavez talks about? Some think it's a vague concept. (It appears to mean simply socialism in the future.)
• " Why under Chavez a reduction in poverty has gone hand in hand with an increased gap between rich & poor.
• " Is it good that Chavez' aim is a direct link between the President and the people? It worries some that this cuts out intermediate structures and puts too much power in the hands of one person. As the one of our interlocutors put it, "The only way to get Chavez out is when he dies from old age. Like Castro, but in a country with much more power and wealth....We have no option but to cross this desert."

We also talked with people in Chavez' camp, who are the majority. In Venezuela's Ministry of Foreign Affairs we were told that history over the last century shows that the developed countries do not understand the rest of the world. "Those who developed international law are now the worst violators of it, especially when it comes to the equality and sovereignty of nations.

We were assured that Chavez is not thinking of a Latin American military unification but rather something along the lines of the European Union. Venezuela opposes the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and supports Mercor Sur, which is the fledgling economic bloc being formed by several South American countries.

We liked the poster we saw on the wall of the Foreign Ministry. "To denounce war is to fight for life."

We were impressed with signs of the Bolivarian Revolution:

I. Medicine.

Before Chavez there were 200,000 Venezuelans who got no medical care whatsoever. Today medical care for everyone is free, as is medical education for doctors. Thirty thousand doctors are now in training, some in Cuba.

A staff member of a non-governmental clinic said to us: "We are going to have a country with freedom of religion and many political parties. This clinic was result of people's initiative, and we want a government controlled by the people."

II. Cooperatives

A large network of cooperatives has been set up throughout the country, providing business opportunities for people who previously had none. We visited grocery stores where the prices are subsidized by the government so that the very poor can afford to buy food. Unfortunately, the meat and poultry shelves are often empty. We hear that this is because of the high rate of inflation in the country. Distributors hoard their stock, demanding higher prices. Chavez has threatened to prohibit this, but we don't think he's done it yet.

III. Education

The literacy campaign of the "Bolivarian Revolution" is famously successful, achieving a very high literacy rate throughout the country. We met persons who are among the country's 5 million drop-outs to go to night school and get their high school diplomas.

IV. Housing

We inspected some of the new, well-built housing. The government is trying to lure people away from Caracas, which is too crowded and doesn't offer enough jobs. The difference between the slums that climb the hills above Caracas and the new government housing is night and day. But the government cannot keep up with the demand.

V. Rural development

Perhaps the most memorable part of our delegation experience was staying for two nights in a mountain community called La Magdalena, a village with beautiful views.

We stayed with a family whose lives are being impacted by the revolution. Carolina had managed to get a university degree, and she teaches in the local school. But then the family money ran out, so Amelie could not go beyond high school. She was smart, and 3 times passed the entrance exams to the university, but without money she could not be admitted. Now the government has come along with free education all the way through university, so her future has opened up.

Carolina's husband has also benefited. He had never been able to finish high school. Then came Chavez, who enabled him to go to school at night, at no expense, and get his diploma. Because he had just recently finished, the whole family was elated.

Carolina and her family are fervent Mennonite Christians. A deep and quiet faith seems to run through the whole household. They are also fun loving. And they are strong supporters of Chavez & his Bolivarian Revolution.

At the local school there's a strong emphasis on citizen participation. Students are elected "Mayor" of each classroom; they have to make campaign promises and later defend their record in fulfilling them. We saw on the wall a sign that a student had made saying "Rights of the Child." It depicted three of them: to eat, to study, and to play. Both the children and the teachers were positive about their school. And we were immensely impressed by it.

The polarization of opinion in Venezuela -- for and against Chavez -- is extreme. It's certainly not evenly divided, because Chavez wins more than 60% of the votes in free elections that have low abstention rates. But the feelings are intense, and it's hard to find any middle ground. We saw on the streets opposing signs. One said: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not for sale." Another said: "Bolivar was not a Communist."

Polarization affects the churches.

We spent an evening with a Presbyterian congregation, and found them deeply, painfully divided. Protestants make up 2-3% of the population and the majority of those are evangelicals. We therefore expected -- and found - - a tiny congregation representing a denomination of less than 1,000 nationwide. What we had not known was that Presbyterians there tend to be middle-class, even professional, people. What we heard that night was a highly articulate debate about what it is to be the church during a time of rapid social change.

They have been through this before. In the late 60's many of their young people, responding to currents flowing through the World Student Christian Federation, reinterpreted the theology of their middle-class churches: they must stand with the poor. In the ensuing struggle, the denomination lost 60% of its members. They know all too well that this can happen again, shrinking their already small numbers to even less.

About half of them were emphatically anti-Chavez. One man had lost his job because Chavez had closed down his company. Others said that Chavez is a dictator and has become too powerful for the good of Venezuela. One women said simply, "I like what he is doing but not the way he is doing it." The other half said, "If we do not take this chance to stand with the poor, to close the huge gap in wealth that plagues Venezuela, then we cannot claim to be Christians." The woman who heads the Venezuela Presbyterian church said, "If our church does not speak out now for the poor, I will have to leave the church, but I will not leave Jesus behind," meaning that the work of Christ will be done in other ways. She concluded that her hope is that "we will learn that we can disagree and still be one church."

We could not in honesty keep silent as these church members searched their hearts. We confessed that in the PCUSA we are having fierce struggles, over theology, politics, sexuality, and just plain power. And that we also are finding it painful and frightening, and are asking how we can learn to agree to disagree.

We appreciated their willingness to talk candidly in front of us. We longed for such openness in our own congregations when they encounter political differences that deeply affect the life of the nation.

Conclusion

Venezuela is a model for the future. Devoting some of the money that used to be in private hands to the public good is a sign of progress and is beneficial to the overall betterment of the country, especially when it is linked to the people's feeling of political empowerment. Questions can be raised, and in Venezuela are raised, about too much concentration of power in the President's hands. At this point in history, however, none of Venezuela's alternatives to Chavismo offer as much hope.

Anne Barstow
Tom Driver
Paul Driver

New York, March 13, 2007