Lay the Claims in Defence of A&E Services, Hospital and Community Services

On November 12 in the House of Commons, Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health, was asked to respond to a briefing of the media on Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s urgent and emergency care review. The Secretary of State responded that phase 1 of the review being led by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director, was being published the next day, and it was embargoed until then. “This is an NHS England report, and NHS England is an independent body, accountable to me through the mandate.” In the exchanges that took place following his remarks, Jeremy Hunt was accused by the opposition benches of a “disrespectful and complacent reply”. In comments from Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham, as well as in media comments from interviews with NHS England, the crisis in emergency care was blamed on a “recruitment crisis and shortage of A&E senior doctors” and the “closure of walk-in centres”. It was also said that the problem lay with “the frail elderly, many of whom should never go to A&E”.

NHS England published the report of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh the next day. It made these same claims as to why the A&Es were in crisis and put forward a future plan which included the massive downgrading of 70 A&Es in England and leaving 70 A&E as “Trauma Centres”1. It became clear over these days that, whilst the government has so far failed in attempts to downgrade Lewisham Hospital A&E because of massive opposition of the people there, it is trying to hide its hand in the plan by NHS England to carry massive downgrading of A&Es throughout the country.

What is not being challenged in this narrative which has been started in Parliament and in the media is the whole direction that the government is taking the NHS. This direction is revealed in that they refuse to discuss in the excuses they give that the A&E crisis is linked directly to the crisis of acute beds which they are closing at a rapid rate. The further downgrading and closure of A&E departments will accelerate the crisis in acute beds even further and therefore the crisis in A&E as well. Ministers and spokesman for NHS England keep referring to the “frail elderly, many of whom should never go to A&E” to dishonestly cover over the crisis that has been caused in acute beds in every hospital up and down the country. In 1987 there were 300,000 hospital beds available in England and today that figure stands at around 140,000, a reduction of more than half. Whilst in the same period first attendances at A&E departments in England have increased from 11 million to over 21 million a year today 2. Of course, it is now common that emergency admissions are boarded right across the hospital wherever a bed can be found.

It is complete disinformation to say that people admitted to hospital through A&E are only done so because they are “too frail and elderly”. The medical staff will tell you that people are only admitted from medical need and privately will tell you that too many are sent home because there is no bed for them. But the narrative goes on that it is the fault of the elderly that our A&Es are in crisis. Both the government and the shadow cabinet advance policy objectives based on this assumption that the solution lies in caring for people in their own home, or nearer to their homes, whilst carrying out massive cuts to community and acute services which are still based in their communities. Under this big lie technique, the closure of District General Hospitals services, including their acute services, is rationalised and justified.

One of the issues that is raised is the shortage of medical staff, especially senior doctors. According to the Daily Mail of November 24, in a racist article written to denigrate foreign doctors, the NHS is made up of doctors from 143 countries, some of which are the poorest in the world. The paper quotes General Medical Council figures which show that there were 252,553 doctors who trained oversees on the register last year, a rise of 3 per cent from 2011.

Unbelievably, the Daily Mail article arbitrarily criticises the standards of foreign doctors, making overtly chauvinist assumptions, instead of pointing out the responsibility of government to ensure and plan for training doctors for the NHS, as well as training doctors for countries which are least placed to lose doctors to Britain. The fact is that the government fails to point the finger at the market for overseas doctors in Britain and refuses to train the doctors that Britain needs. It is in these circumstances that the narrative in Parliament and in the media is that the shortage of doctors becomes the justification for closure or cut-back of vital services like A&E.

Over the next few months and years the working class and people’s movement must continue to lay their claims in defence of the A&E services, hospital beds and community services which are coming under unprecedented attack from constant reviews and cut-backs, fragmentation and privatisation. The claims of the people can only be won by strengthening their organised opposition among health workers in unity with the whole community to fight to defend their services and to safeguard the future of the NHS.

The Mandate under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was published by the Department of Health for the NHS Commissioning Board (Now NHS England) in November 2012 and covers the period April 2013 - March 2015. Updating, or “refreshing” the Mandate to NHS England is an annual requirement in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. On November 13, the government published a new version of The Mandate from the Government to NHS England: April 2014 – March 2015 it first published as a draft in July. At the same time, it published the document The Government's responses to consultation on refreshing the mandate to NHS England: April 2014 to March 2015. Announcing the Mandate, Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt said 1: “The Mandate sets an ambitious agenda to transform patient care and we expect NHS England to demonstrate significant progress against all the objectives by March 2015...” He continued: "The Government has kept changes to an essential minimum to ensure the refreshed Mandate remains strategic, outcomes-focused and affordable within NHS England's budget."

Among issues absent from the new version of the July draft of the government's NHS mandate was the mandate to charge “foreigners”, something that was vigorously opposed by medical staff and others in the consultation period. Item 86 in the responses document says: “As this proposal was subject to a separate consultation and the fact that the Government will publish a separate summary in response, this document does not go into further detail here.” But then contradicting that item 87 says: “However, recently published independent research 2 has shed further light on the scale and potential costs incurred by the NHS on patients who are not, under current rules, eligible for free care. The Government will therefore continue to work with NHS England and providers to work through the issues raised, and to identify cost-effective ways of maximising the recovery of costs incurred through the treatment of chargeable patients. This has been reflected in the refreshed Mandate.”

Such measures to deprive human beings from abroad who are resident or visiting Britain is unacceptable in a modern world and even goes against the mandate of the 1946 National Health Service Act that formed the NHS in England and Wales, which ensured that everyone was eligible for care, including people temporarily resident or visiting. The government is pursuing the extension of charging for NHS services alongside the racist Immigration Bill. Like that Bill it must not pass, and the rights of everyone defended. The measure is also aimed at getting NHS staff used to charging people for care.

Reading the “refreshed” Mandate, as well as the 2012 version, one could be forgiven for thinking that this document was produced in a parallel universe, it is so at odds with the contemporary reality of the NHS. This makes the opening words of Jeremy Hunt all the more sickening in its sanctimonious verbiage: “Since 1948, our NHS has been there whenever we have needed it. We have world-class doctors, nurses and other professionals who take on huge challenges with great ability, determination and courage to provide the best possible care and treatment.”

But how does that stack up with the constant barrage of abuse that he and other health ministers and the obedient monopoly media use to paint the NHS today! Rather than uphold what they say in such documents to doctors and nurses in private, the government tries in vain to lower the esteem of the people for the NHS and the people who work in it in public. They institute a blame culture when things go wrong hiding their hand in the chronic under-investment and cutbacks in the NHS which is at the root of these problems. This is done in order to justify their constant re-organisations of the NHS, which in reality is wrecking, fragmentation, further cut-backs and privatisation. An anti-social direction is at the heart of the shortages of medical staff, nurses, support services, community services and above all the crisis in A&Es caused by the massive cuts in acute hospital beds. Jeremy Hunt then goes on in an irrational manner to claim that this very same direction will solve all these problems of the NHS: “This mandate now challenges the NHS to build on all the great work it has already done to put patients at the heart of everything it does in order to be recognised globally as having the highest standards of care.” But it is not hard to notice in this narrative of Jeremy Hunt that he distances himself and the government from the responsibility for putting themselves at the heart of guaranteeing such a vital public service so that it can put patients first with the highest standards of care. Instead, he rather speaks about it as if it is just another conglomerate of public and private providers operating in the global market and to which the government issues “mandates”, as they do with British Rail and other broken up and privatised monopolies.

The government narrative on the NHS in the mandate further highlights this. In part 6, Freeing the NHS to Innovate, it states: “The Government and NHS England are of one mind in recognising that the scale of the ambitions in this mandate cannot be achieved through a culture of command and control.” This is code for complete and hostile opposition to the responsibility of government for the wellbeing of the people who live and work in society. It is also complete opposition to any notion of planning for the future of the NHS and its material and human resources as a guaranteed public service, providing investment and maintaining healthcare at the highest level society can provide. At the same time, the present situation is one where the government champions the interests of the monopolies in hoovering up all the resources of society including those allocated for public services and welfare without check. In this situation, the government wants to see an end to “command and control” under the guise of promoting “autonomy” and it demands a new style of leadership from Ministers and from NHS England which is about “empowering individuals and organisations at the front line of the NHS”.

The big question is: who is it giving autonomy to in these circumstances and who is it empowering? It is not empowering health workers, people in society and creating conditions for the democratic renewal of society, but it is shifting the NHS further and further into the control of these monopolies – via the internal market with public providers being starved of funding and “independent” providers being given lucrative contracts. This is the role that the government has given to the local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Health and Well-being Boards (HWBs) as they bargain over less and less resources provided by central government. This in Mandate-speak is phrased carefully as “calls for NHS England to lead major improvements in how the NHS undertakes procurement, so that it is more open and fair, and allows providers of all sizes and from all sectors to contribute, supporting innovation and the interests of patients”.

As has been seen at Lewisham, the government's hypocrisy over “local autonomy” versus “command and control” can be seen when it directly intervenes to take the NHS in the direction that favours the interests of private monopolies if it can get away with it, even when and where a CCG and HWB do not agree to downgrade and close hospital services. It was in this circumstance that the government appointed a “Trust Special Administrator” for a neighbouring South London Healthcare Trust and used those powers to intervene outside of its own “mandate” against the wishes and interests of the people of Lewisham and for which the people of Lewisham took the government to court and won. 3 By people fighting to lay the claim for each hospital and community service they are taking a real stand for the rights of health workers and the community to decide on the direction of the health service. It is a stand against monopoly right and in favour of the right of the whole population to health care.

For Your Reference:

The Mandate from the Government to the NHS Commissioning Board: April 2013 to March 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256497/13-15_mandate.pdf

Refreshing the mandate response to the consultation

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256445/mandate_consult_response.pdf

1 NHS confederation: “Government publishes updated Mandate to NHS England”

http://www.nhsconfed.org/priorities/latestnews/Pages/Government-publishes-updated-Mandate.aspx

2 This refers to the document “Qualitative of Visitor Migrant use of the NHS in England”

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251908/Qualitative_Assessment_of_Visitor___Migrant_use_of_the_NHS_in_England_-_Observations_from_the_front-line_-_FULL_REPORT.pdf

3 The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign successfully challenged this decision of the Special Trust Administrator and Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health. See: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-13/ww13-34.htm

March and rally for Scottish
independence, Edinburgh, September 22, 2012The Scottish government published its White Paper, “Scotland’s Future – Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, on November 26, setting out its case for independence for Scotland, explaining how a newly independent Scotland would operate and detailing the process of transition following a Yes vote in the independence referendum on September 18 next year.

In the fortnight leading up to the publication, the British government, big business, think tanks and other allies have gone into action to try to derail any affirmation of Scottish sovereignty, blackmail the Scottish working class and disinform the debate.

Following the announcement of over 900 jobs to be cut at the BAE shipyard in Portsmouth – ending shipbuilding in the city – and over 800 job losses at sites in Glasgow, Filton and Rosyth, it was announced that work on the Type 26 Global Combat Ship would be reserved for the Glasgow yards, Govan and Scotstoun. In a blatant attempt to hold a gun to the head of the Clydeside workers, former Defence Secretary Lord Reid stepped in and claimed that British military ships will not be built in Scotland in the event of a Yes vote.

Then on November 18 the neo-liberal Institute of Fiscal Studies alleged that Scottish independence would lead to a “fiscal gap” resulting in “spending cuts”. This was immediately seized on by Former Chancellor Alistair Darling, leader of the official No campaign, “Better Together”, and followed three days later by a report by the National Association of Pension Funds suggesting that independence could result in higher pension costs. On the day of the White Paper’s publication, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander asserted that taxes in Scotland could rise by £1,000 per person per year.

All three of the Westminster parties, including their Welsh and Scottish sections, stand as one against Scottish independence. On November 21, Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones of the Welsh Labour Party declared that he would veto a sterling currency zone, with the aim of blocking any smooth financial transition if Scotland votes Yes.

Such attempts at blackmail highlight that for a modern Scottish nation-building project to succeed, it must set a new direction for the Scottish economy that is human-centred, not bound by neo-liberal assumptions that favour the interests of the monopolies, and not based on military production other than what the Scottish people decide is necessary for defence of a Scotland that stands against war.

The Scottish government for its part has been rebuking such claims and has hit back on November 24 by declaring the proposed date of independence to be March 24, 2016, the anniversary of the Union of the Crowns in 1603.

A major pillar of the campaign of disinformation is to pose the debate as between “unionism” and “separatism”. This is to divert from the crucial issue facing all people in Britain of democratic renewal, and attempt to discredit the right of Scotland to its independence.

The need is to settle scores with the discredited Westminster system of party-dominated representative democracy. The semi-feudal arrangements of sovereignty lying with the monarch-in-parliament must give way to sovereignty lying with the people as a whole. The need is for a modern constitution that defines the collective and individual rights and duties of citizens, which can neither be violated nor compromised, including the right to self-determination.

The second pillar of the disinformation campaign is the attempt to keep all discussion of the economy in particular bound by the neo-liberal assumptions and the capital-centred outlook. From this starting-point, so-called fatal problems are placed in the way of independence and self-determination, which are rather problems of the neo-liberal economy. This also has the aim of diverting the working class of Britain as a whole from fighting for a change in the direction according with their alternative, human-centred perspective. To realise this change in direction means that the working class requires control of the economy, to uphold public right and restrict the claims of the monopolies on the economy.

The demand for modern, sovereign states of Scotland, England and Wales is therefore part of and serves the programme of the British working class as a whole. The working class of Scotland constituting itself the Scottish nation and vesting sovereignty in the Scottish people is a component part of the aim for the working class to rise to become the leading class of all nations that make up Britain, and is a crucial step to resolving the age-old constitutional issues that have never been resolved in Britain.

The Scottish working class has the role of leading a project to build the Scottish nation anew. This requires independent control of Scotland’s resources and economy – an economy for which the people will decide the direction. This creates the conditions for a new kind of union, should the peoples so decide: a voluntary union of equals that does not compromise the sovereignty and self-determination of its constituent nations; it is in fact founded on that right of self-determination.

The White Paper can be seen as a minimal programme to put the first elements in place for achieving independence with minimum disruption. It is not revolutionary in that sense: Scotland would remain a constitutional monarchy under the Queen in the first instance; it would seek to retain the pound, and so on. It is, nevertheless, a serious programme for achieving independence and taking that first step. It also seeks to head off the wild accusations that have been levelled against independence, even if its arguments, particularly over the economy, remain firmly within the established capital-centred outlook.

Yet even in this moderate form, it would have a profound impact on British imperialism. The ability to close its docks and waters to the British nuclear programme is just one example. Removing the significant human and material resources of Scotland from the direct control of Britain would change the conditions in which British neo-colonialism operates and would be a key factor in weakening the interventionist and aggressive role that Britain continues to pursue in the world.

All of the issues surrounding how Britain is constituted, the aims and implications of independence, the aims of the Scottish nation-building project, and the practical proposals for how to bring that about and take first steps deserve to be discussed and fully informed. The White Paper is a contribution to that discussion. The working class of Scotland and Britain as a whole should examine these issues from its own perspective, as one class with one programme.

The issue for the working class and people of Scotland is achieving the power to make the decisions in those matters which affect their lives. Sovereignty must be vested in the people of Scotland.

The White Paper and Summary can be found here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348

White Paper Executive Summary

Scotland’s referendum on 18 September 2014 is a choice between two futures.

If we vote Yes, we take the next step on Scotland’s journey. We will move forward with confidence, ready to make the most of the many opportunities that lie ahead. The most important decisions about our economy and society will be taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is by the people of Scotland. The door will open to a new era for our nation.

Scotland’s future will be in Scotland’s hands.

If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others.

We, the people who live here, have the greatest stake in making Scotland a success. With independence we can make Scotland the fairer and more successful country we all know it should be. We can make Scotland’s vast wealth and resources work much better for everyone in our country, creating a society that reflects our hopes and ambition. Being independent means we will have a government that we choose – a government that always puts the people of Scotland first.

This is what being independent can deliver for Scotland and it is why the Scottish Government believes the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with independence.

University staff held a national strike on October 31, in the first such strike to be jointly organised by the three unions UCU, Unison and Unite, bringing together both academic and support workers. This is to be followed by a further strike planned for December 3, which will additionally include the Education Institute of Scotland.

The strikes are part of a wider campaign over pay and conditions that will include other actions such as working to contract. This programme of action is the result of the offer of a 1% pay rise for this year, which the unions point out amounts to real terms pay cut of 13% over the past five years, and has been described as the most sustained cut in pay since the Second World War. While staff numbers have increased, the total wages claimed by staff has actually fallen relative to the income of the universities, from 58% to 55.5% over the ten-year period from in 2001 to 2011.

This is the claim of workers in the higher education sector on the massive value that they add to the economy. This added value is only partly reflected in the income received by universities. The scale of the value added by education, research and support workers is such that even that which is returned to universities in the form of income has been enough to create a reported surplus of more than £2 billion in the sector as a whole, resulting in increased cash reserves held by a number of universities.

Meanwhile, the pay and benefits for the upper echelons of university management has been rising at a faster rate. While over 4,000 staff are being paid below the Living Wage, defined as £7.45 per hour (or £8.55 in London), more than half of vice-chancellors claim packages approaching £250,000, or around 18 times that of the lowest paid.

Related to this, on November 4, Unison and the NUS began a call for all universities in England, Scotland, Wales and the North of Ireland to become accredited living wage employers. Currently just 17 universities are accredited as such.

Unions also point out that over half of institutions are using zero hours contracts and the numbers of staff employed under such terms are growing.

Michael MacNeil, UCU head of higher education, said: “Staff have suffered year-on-year cuts in the value of their pay. Quite simply, enough is enough. We urge the employers to reflect on the fact that they are about to face their first ever strike by three unions at the same time and come to the negotiating table to resolve this dispute.”

“Our members have had enough of the poverty pay increases of recent years,” said Mike McCartney, Unite national officer for education. “We urge [the employers] to get back around the negotiating table with the three unions to resolve it once and for all.”

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said: “Taking strike action is never an easy decision, especially for those already struggling on low pay. With Christmas less than two months away losing a day’s pay is even harder, but it shows just how angry and upset our members feel at this miserly 1% offer. Even members earning above the Living Wage are finding their incomes squeezed to breaking point.”

The strike went ahead after calls to negotiate were flatly refused by university employers. “We are amazed the employers are still refusing to sit down with us to try and resolve this without any need for disruption,” said Michael MacNeil.

The strike was well-supported; 149 institutions were affected according to the unions, with reports of cancelled lectures, closed libraries, gyms, refectories, and other facilities.

“At Hull University we are picketing at every entrance and most staff have stayed away,” said Steve Torrance, Unison regional organiser for Yorkshire and Humberside. “The strike has attracted really solid support right across the region.”

Andy Tub, UCU negotiating secretary at the University of the West of England, Bristol, said: “Support today has been pretty solid. 90% of us are out. We’ve had a massive impact on the university and its teaching.”

Along with the strikes, marches and rallies were held in 21 towns and cities.

Attempts to drive a wedge between students and staff failed. Students were delivering free hot drinks to striking staff at the picket line at the University of the West of England. Student unions took collections, while students at Sheffield and Sussex occupied various university buildings in support of the strike.

“We have had great support from students who have not crossed the picket line,” said Theresa Griffin, Unison regional organiser in Manchester.

And at Goldsmiths College, London, staff gave a series of public lectures for students outside of the university’s library in a “teach-out”.

Addressing a rally of over 250 people outside the University of Bristol, TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “It’s fantastic to see so many people turning out today. I know that everybody who is here today cares passionately about education. That’s why you work at the university. You care about education, you care about students. The education system is massively important to our country. But you can’t deliver a first class service on third class pay and conditions. I’m proud to be here, proud to see three unions working together, proud to bring greetings of solidarity on behalf of the whole TUC and six million UK workers but, most of all, I’m proud of you – each and every one of you – for having the courage to stand up, to stand together and to speak up for what is right.”

Sources: UNISON, UCU, UnionNews, Nouse (University of York student newspaper), Times Higher Education, BBC, The Independent

Education Secretary Michael Gove and the Department for Education stand accused of a cover-up over allegations of fraud and conflicts of interest surrounding the flagship free school the King’s Science Academy in Bradford, in a fresh blow to the government’s education agenda.

One of the first free schools to be approved by the Department for Education (DfE), the King’s Science Academy (KSA) opened in September 2011 as a co-educational secondary school for students aged 11 to 18. It is a model of the government’s key free school programme, praised by David Cameron as “inspiring” and “innovative” on visiting the school personally last year.

Free schools are state-funded, while remaining independent of local authority control. KSA is operated by Kifsa, a private limited company. The land on which the school is built is owned by Alan Lewis, Vice-chairman of the Conservative Party.

The school fell from grace when a whistleblower made allegations at the end of 2012 that led to an investigation by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), which produced a report in May that was published five months later on October 24.

This report details a catalogue of irregularities, which if proven amount to fraud. Amongst numerous other allegations, the main issue is that out of the startup grant of £183,000, it is stated that £77,000 could not be justified or accounted for. This includes £11,000-worth of rent invoices apparently fabricated by Kifsa Ltd. and a payment of over £5,600 to one governor in expenses for which no explanation could be given.

The matter was referred to the police in April, who concluded that no further action was to be taken. It has since transpired in an admission by the DfE that it merely raised the matter “verbally” to Action Fraud, the privately-run national fraud reporting centre, and did not actually provide a copy of its report. In turn, Action Fraud incorrectly filed an “information” rather than a criminal report, resulting in the decision not to take further police action.

Respect MP for Bradford West George Galloway was approached by an individual expressing concerns about the land deal between the academy and Hartley Group company owned by Conservative vice-chairman Alan Lewis. Galloway wrote to the West Yorkshire police proposing that they include the issue in their investigation into the school.

Galloway and Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East David Ward, who said that “it is the system in place and the complete lack of scrutiny over public money that has directly facilitated the fraudulent and inappropriate practices at Kings Science Academy”, have together submitted over twenty parliamentary questions relating to the issue.

Galloway also tabled an early day motion to note that the company of “Alan Lewis, who is a patron of the Kings Science Academy in Bradford, is being paid almost £6 million over 20 years to lease the land on which the academy was built with £10 million of public money” and that the House “believes that such deals are not just against the public interest but involve a clear conflict of interest”.

Gove was questioned in the Commons on November 11 over the government’s handling of the fraud allegations and as to why the DfE took five months to publish the report.

He admitted that there are “questions to be answered”, yet continues to refuse to criticise the KSA. In his tit-for-tat retort accusing Labour of “cynicism”, he stuck to a position of defending the “idealists trying to improve state education”. It might be noted that earlier this year, Ofsted inspectors criticised the school’s poor performance and gave KSA a grade of “requires improvement” for its teaching and management.

It also surfaced that on November 11 that the academy had been fined £4,000 over a controversial exclusion.

The case follows the placing into special measures of the Al-Madinah Free School in Derby in October and the subsequent resignation of the chair of its board of governors, and earlier revelations over the employment of unqualified teachers at the Discovery New School in Crawley.

The general secretary National Union of Teachers, Christine Blower, said on October 25: “It is now apparent that the DfE has been sitting on the report detailing financial irregularities at the Kings Science Academy since May and only released it late today once it became clear that the NUT had released to the press its own document outlining financial irregularities at the school...

“Michael Gove is himself personally responsible for this position. The public can no longer have confidence in him or his education policies.

“Problems around good governance, financial probity and standards of education are emerging in increasing numbers of free schools. The Government cannot continue to claim that these are isolated cases. These problems will continue to recur while we have a free school policy which allows groups to set up new schools and to run themselves without any accountability mechanisms.

“It is ironic that the Government has now asked the local authority to support the free school – a clear recognition of the educational expertise in local authorities. Free schools that are already opened should be brought within the local authority family of schools so they can be properly supervised in all their activities. The Government must end the approval of new schools by the free school route and must restore to local authorities the legal powers to open new maintained schools where places are needed. These schools must be locally accountable.”

WWIE is posting this briefing by the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. We add our voices to those of the Venezuelan people and the world’s progressive forces who are denouncing the attempts of the right-wing, backed by world reaction, to destabilise the progressive direction of Venezuela under President Nicolas Maduro.

Millions of Venezuelans will go to the polls on 8 December to elect 335 Mayors. This will be another opportunity for Venezuelans to express themselves at the ballot box as they have done in 17 elections, all declared free and fair, since Hugo Chavez opened up a new political era in Venezuela in 1999. However, there are fears that extremists in Venezuela's right-wing opposition coalition are planning to use these elections as a focal point for further destabilisation against the government of Nicolas Maduro, elected in April following the death of Hugo Chavez. Destabilisation attempts were used repeatedly against Hugo Chavez to try and unseat his democratically elected government.

Opposition Violence at the April 2013 Presidential Election

December's elections are the first since a wave of violence and destabilisation was unleashed in April by sections of Venezuela’s right-wing opposition in response to Nicolas Maduro winning the Presidential election. This was an attempt by sections of the opposition to unseat Maduro even before he was sworn into office and to exploit the new political context following the death of Hugo Chavez.

Following a close but decisive election result, with Nicolas Maduro winning by 260,000 votes (51-49%), the opposition immediately alleged fraud despite providing no evidence and having themselves signed off more than a dozen audits of the voting system prior to the election. They continued to make these baseless allegations even after a 100% recount, that they had demanded, confirmed the results. The spurious claims continued even after governments across the political spectrum in Latin America and those in the UK, France, Spain and others in the EU recognised the results.

Opposition leader Henrique Capriles used these baseless claims of fraud as a pretext to encourage opposition supporters to “vent their anger”. A wave of opposition led political violence followed resulting in the death of 11 innocent people with dozens injured as well as petrol bombings and arson attacks on government funded health centres, National Electoral Council buildings and the headquarters of parties supporting Nicolas Maduro.

The Opposition’s Record of Rejecting the Will of the People

This refusal to accept the legitimate election results in April is totally consistent with past refusals of extremists in the Venezuelan opposition to abide by Venezuela’s democratically approved constitution. On numerous occasions they have attempted to directly oust the elected government. At other times they have sought to generate crises that would see the elected government forced from office, despite its constitutional mandate.

The most renowned example is the short-lived military coup against the democratically-elected Chavez government in 2002 which saw widespread bloodshed and the abolition of all democratic institutions until the coup was overturned by popular demonstrations. In 2003, they unleashed a 64-day oil industry lock-out that saw the economy collapse by a third with the declared aim of ousting President Chavez. The right-wing opposition coalition then claimed fraud at the 2004 recall referendum on whether Hugo Chávez would continue as President. Hugo Chavez won with 59% and the results were ratified by various bodies including the Carter Centre. The opposition promised to provide evidence of fraud but, a decade later, have yet to do so underlining that this was nothing more than a cynical attempt to sabotage the electoral system and provoke a constitutional crisis. Likewise, in 2005, faced with certain defeat, they decided to boycott the parliamentary elections to try to undermine the results, a move publically opposed by the Organisation of American States.

In contrast, the opposition coalition has been quick to accept the results of elections that it has won. It accepted the results of a constitutional referendum in 2007 when it won by 51%-49% and of the seats won at the 2010 parliamentary elections and at the 2008 and 2012 state governor elections.

Venezuela’s Free and Fair Elections

Despite the recent politically motivated allegations made against the electoral system and attempts to de-legitimise the Maduro government, there is clear evidence that Venezuela has a free and fair electoral system. Every set of elections since Hugo Chavez was elected President in 1999 has been declared free and fair including by international bodies such as the EU and the Organisation of American States (OAS). Jimmy Carter, former US President and a Nobel Prize winner for his work on democracy said last year: "of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

Continued Destabilisation Attempts

Approaching December's elections, destabilisation attempts appear to be ongoing with the aim of replacing the legitimately elected Maduro government. Leopold Lopez, a senior opposition politician and campaign manager for presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, told the press in November that the opposition sought regime change.

There is growing concern over the use of economic sabotage to exploit and create genuine difficulties in the Venezuelan economy and damage key infrastructure, similar to the previously mentioned oil lock-out of 2003. Fears have been expressed that this echoes US President Nixon’s strategy to "make the economy scream" initially used to try to overthrow the progressive government of Salvador Allende in Chile in the 1970s. Government investigations have recently concluded that an enormous fire at a major oil refinery in 2012 was the result of sabotage as was a nationwide electricity blackout this September.

In this context, a statement in October by 45 Venezuelan retired military officers, including a dozen generals and admirals, and a former defence minister, supporting a military intervention to replace the Maduro government is particularly worrying.

Election Day Protests: the opposition have called for demonstrations immediately after voting ends on 8 December. Whilst the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of democratic freedoms and is enshrined in the Venezuelan Constitution, there are concerns about the real intention of such protests, especially as April's political violence took place with the pretext of a call for protest. Likewise in 2002, the right-wing opposition used protests to generate large scale physical confrontation, with snipers shooting on the crowds. This opposition-organised bloodshed was used as the justification for the army to oust the elected Chavez government and suspend democracy.

Comments by opposition leaders have added to the fears that protests may have unconstitutional motives. For example, Maria Corina Machado, a leading opposition spokesperson said in November that Nicolas Maduro's period of office will not be determined by the constitution but will be “determined on the streets”. Machado was a signatory to the 2002 coup and earlier this year was widely reported to have signed a petition calling on “the Venezuelan ...Armed Forces to restore the Constitution” and “take charge”.

Unconstitutional Arguments

Some in the opposition are characterising the mayoral elections as a plebiscite against the Maduro government. They are seeking to popularise the idea that if Nicolas Maduro does not win a majority in the mayoral elections this must lead to the creation of a new government. Election day protests by opposition supporters are being described as an opportunity to show the world that a majority wants Nicolas Maduro to go. Of course, local elections have no relevance to the legitimacy of the elected national government. Furthermore parties aligned to Nicolas Maduro have a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, hold 20 out of 23 state governorships and 22 of 23 local state assemblies. Additionally, polls give Maduro approval ratings of almost 60%, significantly higher than many governments across the world.

Most importantly this line of argument runs contrary to Venezuela's constitution which states that the President will serve a six-year presidential term. Thus Maduro is the constitutional president of Venezuela until 2019. The opposition should respect that democratic mandate even if it would have preferred a different outcome.

US Support for the Opposition

The US government has very close relations with the Venezuelan opposition. In contrast governmental relations have never recovered after the US backed the 2002 military coup against Hugo Chavez and are continually undermined by the millions of dollars of direct funding to opposition groups that the US government provides via bodies including the National Endowment for Democracy. Indeed funding for Venezuela's main opposition party, Primera Justicia, has come from this source. Wikileaks revelations that the US' strategy is to isolate the Venezuelan government appear to explain its purpose.

Venezuela's opposition has been emboldened by remarks from influential US politicians such as US Assistant Secretary of State, Roberta Jackson, who claimed earlier this year that it would be "difficult" to have "open, fair and transparent elections" in Venezuela. This was widely regarded as a political intervention given that Latin American and European governments have regularly accepted Venezuela’s elections as free and fair. Such support from the US does nothing to discourage the opposition parties from engaging in destabilisation and from feeling that it can operate outside of Venezuela's constitution.

Conclusion

Venezuela has a robust democracy with more elections held in the past 15 years than in the previous 40 years. All have been declared free and fair. However, extremists in the Venezuelan opposition have never accepted the legitimacy of the new constitution, endorsed by a nationwide referendum in 1999. Various attempts to oust Venezuela’s elected governments have been attempted and, following the death of Hugo Chavez, appear to be intensifying. Defenders of democracy across the world can best serve the democratic process in Venezuela by calling on the opposition parties to accept the will of the Venezuelan people and to abide by the country’s democratically approved constitution.