From Representative Democracy to Participatory Competitive Authoritarianism: Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Politics

From Representative Democracy to Participatory Competitive Authoritarianism: Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Politics – Scott Mainwaring

The article “From Representative Democracy to Participatory Competitive Authoritarianism: Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Politics” by Scott Mainwaring was one of the assigned readings for the 25 July. The reading describes the findings and opinions of many other authors, including Jason Seawright and Jana Morgan. The collapse of the party system in Venezuela is described and analysed, and the flow on effects to other countries are also briefly discussed

.

The Venezuelan political system was one of the most stable in South America, and was deemed one of the most successful democracies outside of the industrial democratic states (Mainwaring, 2012). This all changed with the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998, with Venezuela abruptly transforming into ‘competitive authoritarianism’ (Mainwaring, 2012).

The authors under review in the reading give 3 main reasons for the collapse of the democratic system in Venezuela.

1.        The economic and social failures of the previous regime
2.   .    The convergence of the main political parties
3.         The increase in the price of oil

Economic and social failures:

There was a substantial rise in corruption among the traditionally popular parties in Venezuela during the 1990’s (Mainwaring, 2012). This may have caused people to become disillusioned with the party system (Mainwaring, 2012). This allowed for the election of Hugo Chavez, and the subsequent decrease in the civil liberties awarded to the population and the increasing unfairness within the political system (Mainwaring, 2012). There was also a steep drop in living conditions in the 1980’s and 1990’s (Mainwaring, 2012). This often drives people to vote for more left-wing parties, contributing to the rise of Hugo Chavez. Some authors, including Seawright and Morgan, whose articles are discussed in the reading, believe that this was the main cause of the collapse of the party system in Venezuela. However, Mainwaring believes that it is only one of a series of contributing factors (Mainwaring, 2012).

 Convergence of political parties:

Venzuelan politics, from 1959 to the early 1990’s, was seen as a party-archy, due to the incredible power held by the two main parties (Mainwaring, 2012). Democracy was very strong, and highly institutionalized within the country. However, one of biggest factors that contributed to the rise and election of Hugo Chavez, and the subsequent demise of real democracy, was the convergence of the two main political parties in Venezuela (Mainwaring, 2012). These parties were Accion Democratica (AD) and the Comite de Organizacion Politica Electoral Independiente (COPEI). For some inexplicable reason, during the 1990’s both of these parties drifted to the right of the electoral spectrum, and began to hold the same conservative views (Mainwaring, 2012). This was strange, as many Venezuelans held leftist views, and were left with no party that was seen to represent them (Mainwaring, 2012). This created room for Hugo Chavez on the Venezuelan political stage.

Boom in oil prices:

In real terms, oil prices increased six fold between 1998 and 2008 (Mainwaring, 2012). This was good for the Venezuelan economy as it led to higher than usual economic growth. The Venezuelan economy is dependent on oil, and the price increase led to an increase in national income. This, in turn, made it easier to govern on the left, as it meant Chavez had more money to spend on leftist programmes (Mainwaring, 2012). The exact statistics and figures of this are noted in the reading.

Is Venezuela a democracy?

There is still much debate among scholars (not to mention the general population!) about whether the Chavez regime qualifies as a democracy. There are many different definitions that are used to either include the regime, or leave it out of the category of ‘democracies’. However, particular author’s feelings on the topic of democracy in Venezuela seem to depend on whether they are a supporter of Chavez and his regime. As could be expected, authors that oppose Chavez believe that his regime is not a democracy (Mainwaring, 2012). The opposite is also the case, with authors such as Wilpert (whose work is discussed in the reading), who support, or at least have some positive feelings towards the Chavez regime, saying that Venezuela is a democracy (Mainwaring, 2012).

Competitive Authoritarianism:

Chavez came to power by democratic means (he was elected), but following that took many steps to erode civil liberties (Mainwaring, 2012). He took more and more control of state institutions, and made it very difficult to oppose him in any way (Mainwaring, 2012).

Consequences of the Chavez regime:

Two of the most problematic and troubling consequences of the Chavez regime are the erosion of civil liberties and the increasingly unfair and uneven playing field (Mainwaring, 2012). This is a typical side-effect of an autocratic regime.

One of the most interesting observations made is that Chavez has done a better job than anyone in South America of promoting a sense of empowerment among the poor (Mainwaring, 2012). It is important to note, however, that a ‘sense’ of empowerment is different to actually being empowered. Millions of poor Venezuelans have become more involved in ‘democracy’ than ever before (Mainwaring, 2012). It is argued that this could have led to an increase in intolerance (Mainwaring, 2012).

Hope or fear for the future?

An interesting point was raised towards the end of the reading. That is, the Chavez regime avoided (for the most part), outward conflict with countries such as the US, and went almost unnoticed by the international community (Mainwaring, 2012). The author suggests that other fledgling dictators could also use a similar plan, and follow in the footsteps of Chavez to establish ‘acceptable’ authoritarian regimes (Mainwaring, 2012). It is noticed that this is particularly worrying in South America, where many countries have seen democracy begin to crumble as corruption has risen in recent years. Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua are all cited as examples to watch in the future (Mainwaring, 2012).  Given the recent death of Hugo Chavez, it will also be interesting to keep an eye on Venezuela, to see whether or not the country swings back towards democracy.

Conclusion:

The reading highlights the differences in opinions held by authors writing about Venezuela and the Chavez regime. It also points out that it is very difficult to pinpoint any one factor that can cause the collapse of a party system, but many factors may lead to such an event. The consequences of such a collapse, and the effect and influence it could have on the reading were also discussed, questioning the future of true democracy in some South American countries. It will be interesting to see what happens in Venezuela in the future, given the relatively recent death of Chavez.