Opinions about the state of democratic governance in Venezuela during the government of President Hugo Chávez Frías have been polarized. Some critics come close to labeling it a dictatorship while others, his supporters, claim to be restoring a truly democratic regime to Venezuela. Venezuelan society is polarized along political lines and this climate does not help to consolidate liberal democracy. In such a context, it is easy to fall into simplistic, black and white views; however, it is important to seek a more gradual and balanced appreciation of the complex issues at play. There also should be an understanding of how Venezuelans themselves view the state of their democracy. Assessments of the functioning of democracy should also take into account historical and regional contexts.
Free and fair electoral competitions are of course key to democracy, but other important elements to consider include the civilian control of the military, participation rights, and adequate civil and political liberties. These are the minimum requirements for a country to be deemed a liberal democracy. In the case of Venezuela, not all of these requirement are met, making the country a semi-democracy or (as the Freedom House calls it) a Partly Free Country. Venezuela’s Freedom House ranking score for Venezuela was nine out of a possible 14, 2 representing a free, fully democratic country. A semi-democratic system is a system in which it is a possible for the party/ candidate to lose an election but does not meet all the criteria required to be considered a democratic government.
Venezuelans have gone to the polls frequently in recent years, but under an atmosphere of intense polarization. The zero-sum character of the political conflict in Vene...
... middle of paper ...
...enezuela, and that he continues to enjoy strong popular support. The Latinobarometro survey found that 65 percent of Venezuelans approve of the way in which Chávez is leading the country Interestingly, the opposition has secured important victories, such as the November 24, 2008 electoral success in several state and municipal races The opposition retained power in Zulia, the country’s most populous state, and won crucial races in the capital, Caracas, according to the National Electoral Council. The opposition held onto the two states it won at the last regional elections four years ago and also beat Chávez’s veteran aides in the heavily populated state metropolitan area around Caracas, as well as the mayoralty of the capital . Chávez has taken his acceptance of this defeat as proof of his commitment. He showed this by allowing the opposition to take office.
From 1806 to 1826 most of the Latin countries under Spanish rule fought for their independence. The reason that caused these countries to have courage to fight for independence was because in 1808 Napoleon was able to invade and conquer Spain. Examples of those countries are Venezuela and Chile. There are similarities in the ways in which these two countries fought for their independence but there are also some differences in how they fought. Some of the leaders who were involved in the Venezuela’s fight for independence were Simon Bolivar, Francisco de Miranda and Antonio José de Sucre. The Venezuelan fight for independence against the Spanish empire began in 1811 and finally ended in 1823. The Venezuelan war was done in different phases, which began with Francisco de Miranda.
Chavez is one of the greatest Civil Rights activists of times. As a child he watched workers be mistreated and misused. He follows King and Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence and lives by their standards. He also believes that the highest form of freedom carries with it the greatest measure of
Between 1607 and 1733, Great Britain established thirteen colonies in the New World along the land’s eastern coast. England’s colonies included Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Though the colonies were classified as New England, middle or southern colonies, the colonists developed a unifying culture. With this new American culture, the colonists throughout the colonies began to think differently than their English cousins. Because colonial America displayed characteristics of a democratic society and, therefore, deviated from England’s monarchic ways, it was established as a democratic society.
Peter H. Smith. , & , (2012). Democracy in Latin America. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hugo Chavez was the president of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013. He had an interesting way of running the country during his presidency. His political position or ideology could be best defined as Bolivarianism for many reasons. Bolivarianism can be described as a set of doctrines that was popular in South America. It is named after the famous liberator Simon Bolivar. Hugo Chavez’s ideology involved ideas from others he had come to admire. Of course one of those that he admired was Simon Bolivar. The ideas for his ideology all began at a young age when he fell in love with history (Jones 23). During this age Hugo Chavez would often times read about a general named Ezequiel Zamora whom his great great grandfather had served (Marcano, Tyszka 11). Ezequiel Zamora will become a major influence in his ideology later on in his life. Besides Zamora, Chavez would also read about many other theorists. Hugo Chavez not only lived in poverty but also witnessed how bad the poverty around him was (Jones 25-26). Chavez did not like this poverty and wanted to change that any way he could. As he grew up he continued reading about the different theorists and ideologies that they made up (Jones 40). So since a young age Chavez had always been a leftist. As mentioned earlier it continued throughout his life and it intensified during his days at the military academy (Wilpert 07) Eventually Chavez became the president and his political position progressed further left (Wilpert 07). In other words he rejected both far left ideologies such as communism or Marxism-Leninism and moderate ideologies such as social democracy or the third way. However Chavez was aware of these different ideologies but did not consider being part of it. Hugo Chavez instead began t...
In the article “The Lottocracy,” the author Alexander Guerrero makes some bold assessments toward the current system of electing representatives. Alexander Guerrero reflects on the general attitude people have toward voting, analyzes why people vote the way they do and how the system is flawed. It is easy to fall into a state of thinking that one vote does not make a difference when one considers that there is little difference between the candidates. Ethos, pathos, and logos are present throughout the article to persuade and convince the audience of how flawed the current system. Guerrero appeals to his reader’s sense of logic by using examples of statistical analysis that outlines the demographics of those who are currently serving in elected
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing institutions “more transparent and democracy”. The recent Eurozone crisis, it’s associated anti-crisis measures and the recent enlargement of EU have however re-invigorated debate about the EUs democratic legitimacy. At the heart of the debate are discussions not about whether the EU is an all-encompassing democratic institution but rather what are ‘democratic deficits’ or the democratic shortcomings that exist within this powerful economic and political union. Underpinning these divisions as Schmitter argues, are different understandings of what democracy is in the modern context and more specifically in the unique context of the EU. This essay will argue that the EU presents a unique type of political system that is fundamentally democratic, however, there are democratic shortcomings within its procedural and institutional structure.
Hugo Chavez was a powerful and positive force in addressing social issues, however, his singular focus on social issues at the expense of other matters of the country left the Venezuelan economy in tatters. In 1998, 50.4% of the Venezuelan population was living below the poverty line, where as in 2006 the numbers dropped to 36.3% (Chavez leaves). Although he aggressively confronted the issue of poverty in Venezuela, many other problems were worsened. Some Chavez critics say he used the state oil company like a piggy bank for projects: funding homes, and healthcare while neglecting oil infrastructure and production. Without growth in the oil ind...
South America is a land of different cultures and has a history of as many different types of government, mostly dictatorships. Most of South America won independence from Spain and Portugal between 1810 and 1824. In 1823, President James Monroe enunciated the first US policy on Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine warned European nations against interfering in the affairs of independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. In 1904, Roosevelt's Corollary said the US would act as a "policeman", intervening militarily when US interests were at risk.
Throughout the fourteen years that remained in power Chávez followed strategy of introducing a socialist government in Venezuela in stages. According to Enrique Standish in the article titled “Venezuela Finally Turns Communist” it happened in four stages. The first stage consisted of obtaining t...
Now days democracy has been establish in every Latin America country except Cuba, which is still a socialist state. It seemed that every other alternative form of government such as Marxism or Leninism has failed and been replaced by democracy. Furthermore it looks like people in Latin American really enjoy democracy and its’ benefits, as they also consider it to be the best form of government. After the failure of authoritarian leaders and the military intervene their lives, Latin American citizens wanted to change their system into a more fair and honest system, democracy. Democracy is usually defined as a system of honesty, equality, freedom of rights, though for Latin America countries it means gains, welfare and patronage. Latin American did not work the democratic system properly as it should be and different obstacles keep the system away from being consolidated. Democracy in Latin America still face serious problems in matters as grinding poverty, huge social gaps, corruption, drug dealing, inefficient governments and most importantly governments who promote and use military. The real question is why democracy actually failed even though democracy is what people want. Paraguay is a case of failure in transition democracy because of the corruption and other things that will be argued in this essay. Paraguay and Ecuador are considered to be the only countries that democratization did not achieve consolidation, in differ from Chilli and Central American.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
In a democracy, free and fair elections which are held after around half a decade, guarantee social rights and equality. These elections ensure that every citizen has the right to vote, and hence they create social stability among the society. Each and every individual casting his vote in the elections reduces discrimination among the people. Citizens are not judged on the basis of religion, race, color, social status and so on. In this way, the dignity of nationals is not damaged and people can live in peace. In addition to voting rights, a democracy also assures access to other services like security, education, property rights, and healthcare facilities. These human rights maintain social equity and involv...
It is clear that there is a correlation between democracy and development, but not necessarily causation, but quite the opposite. In order to critically examine the relationship between development and democracy, this essay will firstly specify what is meant by democracy and then define the concept of development. Finally, will argue that democracy is often an essential prerequisite to development, at least in its early stages, but most importantly, the success of a development program relies not on the regime type but on the character of the states and its association with politics. The term democracy does not have a unanimous definition; however it could be understood in a more substantive manner as a political regime that protects the freedom of individuals and expresses the will of the majority through free and fair elections, protection of minority rights and respect for basic human rights. Notwithstanding this general conception of democracy, there is no consensus on precisely how to define or measure democracy.