Gomez y gomecismo en el Zulia (1928-1937) (review)

Gómez y gomecismo en el Zulia (1928-1937). By YERIS URDANETA. Maracaibo, Venezuela: SINAMAICA, 2000 . Photographs. Notes. 207 pp. Paper.

Like students of the porfiriato in Mexico, Venezuelan scholars have struggled to analyze signs of resistance to the long dictatorships of Cipriano Castro (1899-1908) and Juan Vicente Gómez (1908 -1935 ). Also like the Mexicanists, Venezuelan revisionists want to move the spotlight away from the capital city in order to highlight the nature of regional issues. The center of opposition to the Gómez regime, according to historiography and political legend, was Caracas, especially the student revolt of 1928 with the participation of Rómulo Betancourt and other founders of Acción Democrática. Urdaneta suggests that the standard view should be augmented by a consideration of resistance in the petroleum-rich state of Zulia between 1928 and 1937 .

Citing a number of groups that provided a somewhat tenuous cover for clandestine organization, Urdaneta lists numerous progressive individuals who were associated with spiritists, Masons, and the literary group Seremos and other publications. Unfortunately, little information is provided on any of the participants except for relatively well-known figures like Valmore Rodríguez, Isidro Valles, and communist activists Rodolfo Quintero, Olga Luzardo, and Juan Bautista Fuenmayor. The church in Zulia, headed by Archbishop Marcos Sergio Godoy, staunchly defended gomecismo and collaborated with the dictatorship to harass the progressives as subversives.

After Gómez's death in December 1935 , Maracaibo and the petroleum zone erupted into demonstrations and strikes, resulting in considerable property damage. The years 1936 and 1937 saw bitter political confrontations between those who hoped to see the birth of a socialist democracy (especially Rodríguez and the Bloque Nacional Democrático--BND) and those who resisted change. Urdaneta argues that the organized political activity after Gómez's death amply demonstrated the vitality of the clandestine activity in the early 1930 s.

The paucity of direct sources on the clandestine resistance weakens her argument. In addition to a few archival documents, newspapers (heavily censored), and published histories and memoirs, Urdaneta cites four interviews of participants from the period, but their revelations were unexceptional. Thus, a few editors, journalists, and communist organizers remain at center stage, as does the city of Maracaibo. There are references to strikes and activity in the petroleum zone, but little significant analysis. Especially for one who is familiar with Venezuelan political history, there is little new here except for some of the lists of names of local citizens who may have been active in some clandestine resistance.

The book derives from Urdaneta's master's thesis at the University of Zulia, where she is an associate professor affiliated with the Centro de Estudios Históricos. Her work forms part of the Centro's project to trace Zulia's role in the nineteenth and twentieth century formation and consolidation of the Venezuelan state and nation.