Who Mobilizes? Participatory Democracy in Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution

This article assesses popular mobilization under the Chávez government's participatory initiatives in Venezuela using data from the AmericasBarometer survey of 2007. This is the first study of the so‐called Bolivarian initiatives using nationally representative, individual‐level data. The results provide a mixed assessment. Most of the government's programs invite participation from less active segments of society, such as women, the poor, and the less educated, and participation in some programs is quite high. However, much of this participation clusters within a narrow group of activists, and a disproportionate number of participants are Chávez supporters. This partisan bias probably reflects self‐screening by Venezuelans who accept Chávez's radical populist discourse and leftist ideology, rather than vote buying or other forms of open conditionality. Thus, the Venezuelan case suggests some optimism for proponents of participatory democracy, but also the need to be more attuned to its practical political limits.     

Was Hugo Chávez to Blame? Media Depictions of Polarisation in Venezuela, 1998–2013

This article explores how seven leading western newspapers covered the topic of polarisation in Venezuelan society during the Chávez era. It found that the media largely ignored the debate as to whether Hugo Chávez was the catalyst or consequence of polarisation. It virtually unanimously presented him as a divisive, polarising character destroying democracy, contrary to the lived experiences of many Venezuelans, while ignoring other possible explanations for the polarisation. It also found that there was a strong similarity in how the liberal and conservative, British and American press covered the issue, with virtually no differences in explanations or outlook, thus manufacturing consent for the elite view of the issue.     

Undemocratic Democracy: Venezuela and the Distorting of History

President Hugo Chávez has been the subject of much frenzied comment, as much at academic conferences as in the press. Criticism has been to a great degree personalised against his very visible public profile. The crisis of democracy in Venezuela has been widely ascribed to faults committed by the traditional parties since the early 1980s and reflected in the coterminous rise in crime and violence. Support for Chávez, or even objective comment, has been at a premium. This article looks at the crisis of democracy across a wider timescale and sees the ‘most stable democracy in Latin America’ to have been deeply flawed from the outset. It reflects an earlier propaganda campaign, similarly short on meaningful analysis, aimed at undermining the popularity of a previous unconventional leader of Venezuela, Marcos Pérez Jiménez. It is claimed that Venezuelans want to preserve democracy but are also ready to support military coups to oust corrupt or inefficient politicians. Is Chávez merely representative of transient anti‐party feeling or could the history of Venezuelan democracy have caused a more fundamental change in relationships between the mass of the people and their leader?     

Narrowing the Gap: Explaining the Increasing Competitiveness of the Venezuelan Opposition

This article seeks to explain why electoral support for the Venezuelan opposition has increased substantially, using Venezuelan public opinion survey data from LAPOP and an opt‐in sample collected through the online vote advice application Brújula Presidencial Venezuela. It analyzes why Venezuelans who had either voted for Chávez or abstained in 2006 defected and started to support the opposition in subsequent elections. It proposes several reasons: negative voter evaluations of the economy, concern for public safety, and dissatisfaction with Venezuelan democracy. While the finding that negative policy evaluations boost support for the opposition aligns with theoretical expectations, this study finds a strong relationship between having different evaluations of the quality of democracy and supporting Chávez, which shows that the advocacy of two competing visions of democracy by the incumbent and the opposition also affects voting patterns in Venezuela.     

Reevaluating the Chávez Regime: Participatory Democracy or Rentier Populism?

This analysis evaluates the Chávez regime by its own standard for democracy and citizenship, what it referred to as protagonistic, participatory democracy. Rather than committing itself to the realisation of this project, and the expanded notion of citizenship that it entailed, the Chávez regime employed the rhetoric of participatory democracy in the service of populist rule. As a result, it failed to promote the participatory form of democracy and citizenship promised in Twenty-first Century Socialism. Accordingly, this analysis demonstrates how the concentration of top-down, executive power characteristic of rentier populism impedes the egalitarian and solidaristic mission of participatory democracy.     

From Bullets to Ballots: The Emergence of Popular Support for Hugo Chávez

The election of Hugo Chávez as Venezuela's president in 1998, less than seven years after his unsuccessful military coup attempt, marked a pivotal moment in one of the most dramatic political transformations in the nation's history. This article explores public reaction to Chávez's shift, especially the question of why Venezuelans would entrust democratic governance to a man who had once attempted to topple the nation's democratic regime. Two hypotheses are proposed: one of converted militancy and one of democratic ambivalence. Analysis of survey data from 1995 and 1998 demonstrates that Chávez's initial base of support drew heavily on Venezuelans who were ambivalent or hostile toward democracy. By 1998, and consistent with the converted militant hypothesis, Chávez won support from a substantial portion of citizens who valued democracy. Yet democratic ambivalence also contributed to Chávez's winning electoral coalition.     

Laboring Under Chávez: Populism for the Twenty‐first Century

This analysis addresses two interrelated questions: what were labor conditions like under Hugo Chávez? and what do those conditions suggest about the relationship between populism and leftism in Latin America? The answer to the first question is unequivocal. Despite its socialist rhetoric, the Chávez regime fragmented and weakened organized labor, undermined collective bargaining, and exploited vulnerable workers in cooperatives. Thus the regime's primary foible was not its radical leftism but its pursuit of populist control at the expense of the leftist goals of diminishing the domination of marginalized groups and expanding their autonomous participation in civil society. This appraisal of labor politics under Chávez indicates substantial tension between the realization of these leftist goals and populist governance. It further suggests the need to distinguish more clearly between leftism and populism and their respective impacts on democracy.     

The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chávez

Through the application of an analytical model categorized as “missionary,” this article examines the cultural and political‐religious frames that sustain the leadership of Hugo Chávez. It demonstrates that missionary politics is a forceful presence in today's Venezuela, and should be understood as a form of political religion characterized by a dynamic relationship between a charismatic leader and a moral community that is invested with a mission of salvation against conspiratorial enemies. The leader's verbal and nonverbal discourses play an essential role in the development of such a missionary mode of politics, which seeks to provide the alienated mass of underprivileged citizens with an identity and a sense of active participation in national affairs. This study argues that purely utilitarian and materialistic explanations of Chávez's leadership fail to capture these soteriological dynamics in his movement.     

‘Gender,Neoliberalism, and the Venezuelan Migrant Crisis’: Female Migrants' Informal Labour and Access to Services in Urban Colombia

Neoliberalism, informality, and migration are all inextricably linked and the Venezuelan migration crisis has certain implications for women. While extensive post-neoliberal spending programmes under Chávez served to reverse the feminisation of poverty, millions of Venezuelans have migrated in recent years due to a severe economic crisis. Oral history testimonies highlight how female Venezuelan migrants in neoliberal Colombia often have no choice but to engage in precarious informal earning strategies and also experience reduced access to public services, which can substantially increase their domestic labour and outgoings. In many ways they are better off in Venezuela, thus highlighting how neoliberalism exacerbates gender poverty in both Latin America and the Global South.     

Contemporary Left‐wing Populism in Latin America: Leadership,Horizontalism, and Postdemocracy in Chávez's Venezuela

Critical engagement with the case of Chavismo in Venezuela can offer valuable insights for a fuller understanding of contemporary populism in Latin America. While for some scholars Chávez's populism has fostered popular empowerment, others dwell on the newly confirmed tensions between populism, liberal rights, and democratic proceduralism. This article embraces both positions but moves beyond their one‐sidedness to cast Chavista populism as an inherently contradictory phenomenon that has constituted an ambivalent and transitory process in response to the gradual closure of liberal (post)democracy. Chavista “caesaro‐plebeian” populism is construed as a site of tension and contention, which entails both promises and dangers for democracy. To make these points, the article draws on the discursive analysis of populism and on a new, productive shift in the study of populism in Venezuela, which pursues ethnographic field research on social movements instead of focusing exclusively on the figure of the leader.     

The rise and fall and rise of populism in Venezuela

The article seeks to outline the main elements through which a populist political order was built in Venezuela. It will be done, first by looking at the golden years a of Venezuelan populism (1945–1948). It will be argued that the constitution of populist politics meant: an appeal to the people, the articulation of new social relations and constitution of new political identities. Then it will turn to the latter Pérez and Caldera showing the basic schemes of their governments. They sought to reconstitute politics and reshape political identities in a new populist way. The arrival of Chávez at power and the first months of his government are also analysed.     

Conspiracy Mongering in Venezuela: The Chavismo Period (1998–2018)

Hugo Chávez's rise to power in 1998 brought many changes to Venezuela's political culture. One transformation not frequently commented on is the constant formulation of conspiracy theories, both by chavismo supporters and by its opponents. This article discusses some of those conspiracy theories, relating to the deceased Venezuelan President's origins, his religious beliefs, the 2002 failed coup d'état, and Chávez's own death. It also addresses more recent conspiracy theories relating to Nicolás Maduro's birth, economic warfare, and drug smuggling operations. Venezuela is currently undergoing a major humanitarian crisis, and this article defends the view that, at least partially, conspiracy mongering has been a factor in Venezuela's collapse. As part of Venezuela's reconstruction, this article recommends that Venezuelan political forces need to reach a consensus and agree not to make ridiculous conspiratorial claims.     

Canada and the Honduran Coup

The purpose of this article is to expose the part played by Canadian imperialism in Honduras before and after the military overthrow of democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, on 28 June 2009. It draws attention to the neglected role of the Canadian state's efforts to protect the interests of Canadian capital in Honduras and Latin America more generally through the constant undermining of Zelaya's attempts to return to his legitimate office, and in the ultimate consolidation of the coup under Porfirio ‘Pepe’ Lobo in early 2010. The article simultaneously develops a critique of what has become the standard account of the Honduran coup of 2009. We show how Zelaya was neither a puppet of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, nor an autocrat seeking to entrench his power indefinitely through illegal constitutional reform when he was violently tossed out of government.     

Nationalism and democratic construction: the origins of Argentina and Uruguay's political cultures in comparative perspective

The article focuses on the different effects the formation of national identity had on the development of political democracy in Uruguay and Argentina. Uruguay's process of state building after the civil wars relied on political consensus regarding the rules of the game: the concept of political democracy became an integral part of Uruguay's collective identity. In Argentina, political elites after the civil wars divided on the question of national identity and the substance of political democracy. Uruguay's political identity as a partidocracia [rule by parties] is not a guarantee against authoritarianism, but the country's democratic political culture is resilient, permeating even the armed forces. In Argentina, the exclusionist character of the political process invites authoritarianism, whether of the liberal or populist‐democratic variety. This article focuses, first, on the different models of collective identity that developed after independence; second, on the distinct roles played by the two hegemonic parties in each nation ‐ the Colorados under Batlle and the Radicals under Yrigoyen; and finally, on the authoritarian periods both countries experienced in the 1930s.     

As Clear as MUD: Characteristics,Objectives, and Strategies of the Opposition in Bolivarian Venezuela

Since President Hugo Chávez was first elected in 1998, the Venezuelan opposition seems to have alternated between institutional and extra‐institutional power strategies at different junctures. To help explain this pattern, this article constructs a novel theoretical framework from critical readings of both general theory and accounts of the Venezuelan opposition. It proposes that the strategies should be viewed as dialectical rather than discrete. On this basis, it finds that while the Venezuelan opposition has undergone important changes toward institutionalization in its composition, discursive emphasis, and strategic direction, close readings of opposition texts, interviews with opposition actors, and observations of street demonstrations all reveal continuity with previous rupturist and extra‐institutional tendencies. Both strategies therefore must be considered to achieve a fuller, more comprehensive vision of the Venezuelan opposition; this conclusion has important theoretical implications for the study of opposition in the wider region.     

‘Democracy under Threat’: The Foundation of the Opposition in Venezuela

This article sheds new light on how the Venezuelan Opposition was created and, more widely, on contemporary Venezuelan politics. By focusing on the Opposition's articulation of democracy, the article examines how this movement became possible and how it succeeded in maintaining support. Opinion articles covering the period October 2001 to April 2002 were analysed using the theoretical framework of logics within discourse theory. The article argues that although the Opposition succeeded in maintaining its support throughout Chávez's government, it contributed to the polarised politics that currently characterises Venezuela.     

Carlos Saúl Menem: variations on the theme of populism

The labels neopopulist and/or neoliberal have been attached to Latin American political leaders in an effort to understand the post‐transition to democracy experiences. This article examines the appropriateness of such labels in the Argentine context in the 1990s. It is argued that describing Carlos Menem as either neopopulist or neoliberal obscures rather than illuminates the vicissitudes along the path to establishing the institutions of liberal democracy, a commitment the Argentine electorate made in 1983. An old‐style populist at heart, Menem's pragmatic embrace of the neoliberal zeitgeist can only be understood in the context of the social, political and economic upheavals of the 1980s in Argentina.     

Are the BRICS reformers,revolutionaries, or counter-revolutionaries?

This article argues that the five-nation BRICS group has played a significant role in pressing for reforms in the Western-dominated global order, as well as mounting some revolutionary (and as yet unresolved) challenges to that order. However, it also maintains that there is another (underestimated) aspect to the BRICS' role, viz, their conservative or counter-revolutionary challenges to liberal trends towards democracy, human rights and the progressive evolution of international law. It then discusses how ‘the West’ has responded to these pressures from the BRICS, and other rising powers, and points to uncertainties raised by the recent growth of ‘populist’ pressures within the West itself against aspects of the liberal economic, political and cultural order.     

Vom Extremtyp zum Normalfall? Die schweizerische Konsensusdemokratie im Wandel: Eine Re‐Analyse von Lijpharts Studie für die Schweiz von 1997 bis 2007

Can Switzerland still be seen as an extreme case of federal consensus democracy, as illustrated by Arend Lijphart (1999)? A reanalysis of Lijphart's study of the Swiss political system from 1997 to 2007 clearly demonstrates that a consensus democracy has emerged that bears strong tendencies toward adjustment and normalization of the original exceptional Swiss case to the rest of the continental European consensus democracies. Switzerland can be considered a typical, rather than extreme, case of consensus democracy.     

Uhlin,Anders. Post-Soviet Civil Society: Democratization in Russia and the Baltic States. London and New York,Routledge, 2006, ISBN: 0-415-36804-9.

The Baltic German politician and political thinker Paul Schiemann (1876–1944) is widely recognized as the most prominent defender of liberalism in the Baltic states during the interwar period. However, his liberal ideas have rarely been interpreted in their own right. This article explores the main presuppositions of Schiemann's liberalism: his conceptions of individual freedom, democracy, and cultural development. Although Schiemann's main intentions are liberal, his theory of the anational state includes significant Marxist elements, which call into question the potential of the democratic state. In my conclusions, I will argue that Schiemann's ideas still have theoretical relevance, which must be further explored in the context of contemporary liberal theory.