In 1958, Venezuelans managed to overthrow their dictator and began hosting free and fair elections(https://www.cfr.org/timeline/venezuelas-chavez-era). Venezuela became one of those countries that were internationally considered a strong democracy. Their status as a democracy stuck for the latter half of the 20th century. In my democratic erosion class, we describe democracies as having two key indicators, competition for votes and people working towards a common good. Stealth authoritarianism is defined as using democratic institutions to undermine democracy. In this post, I will give many examples of Chavez practicing stealth authoritarianism.
In 1989, the world began to see the first sign of democratic backsliding in Venezuela. After the 1989 election, post-election violence was carried out by ordinary citizens, leaving 300 confirmed dead (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-12593085). Three years later, a military officer and leader of the Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement-200 attempted a coup. The military officer was known as Hugo Chavez. The coup failed; Chavez was thrown in prison. While the coup was not immediately successful, Chavez became a political star in Venezuela overnight. Many citizens were tired of the corruption and economic instability provided by the current government. Coming to power through a coup failed. However, he became successful in coming to power by democratic means. When Chavez was released from prison, he ran for president and won the vote in 1998 (https://www.cfr.org/timeline/venezuelas-chavez-era). By 1999, a new constitution was approved. We witness the first glimpse of stealth authoritarianism. The constitutional changes included some to protect democracy and some to diminish it. The Supreme court was initially strengthened and provided with more independence (Human Rights Watch, 2008). But presidential term limits and powers were also increased (https://www.cfr.org/timeline/venezuelas-chavez-era). While some of the changes were slightly controversial, it seemed like the new constitution would overall strengthen democracy. However, much changed after the attempted coup against Chavez in 2002.
By April of 2002, Chavez’s approval ratings were down. However, citizens were infuriated when he fired seven executives from a top oil company. The Venezuelan economy strongly depended on oil and had a long history of autonomy and independence. Three days’ worth of protests and strikes broke out. The events reached a peak when the National Guard opened fire on protestors killing 17. Violence spread throughout the country. The Venezuelan military held Chavez responsible and removed him from power. The new leader attempted to fire the supreme court and national assembly and get rid of the constitution. Doing this caused important military support to drop the government collapsed. Chavez came back into power 48 Encarnación 2002). The Supreme Court decided there was not enough evidence to investigate the four officers suspected of being a part of the coup (Human Rights Watch 2008). Chavez became angry with this verdict. His following actions show his disapproval.
In 2004, Venezuelans witnessed Chavez begin to overstep and push for a less impartial court. Chavez signed court-packing legislation that expanded the court from 20 justices to 32. It also became easier to remove judges without impeachment (Human Rights Watch 2008). Justices could become suspended pending an impeachment vote. The president of the assembly could ignore the impeachment voting leaving the justice suspended indefinitely. Justice appointments could be nullified under certain circumstances. Three justices were removed or resigned from the court (Human Rights Watch 2008). Chavez filled all of the open seats with loyalists. Since the Supreme Court justices decided the appointment and removal of lower court judges, four hundred lower court judges were fired and replaced (Human Rights Watch 2008). These actions established a lack of control and independence of the judicial system. Most judges that attempted to rule against them were removed. The court then became complacent with most of the federal government’s actions, even if this meant the actions were human rights violations. While Chavez did not outright ban free press, he did conduct legislative attacks on the media. He expanded penalties on speech and broadcasting offenses. These offenses can include but are not limited to the defamation of public officials and insult laws (Human Rights Watch 2008). The result of these legislative actions caused most media outlets to self-censor. Chavez also created voter registration laws that reduced the ability of Venezuelan citizens living in Miami to vote. This demographic was known to have strong opposition against Chavez (Human Rights Watch 2008).
In 2007, a constitutional referendum was proposed. Chavez had a few controversial proposals, the most controversial being the abolishment of presidential term limits (Human Rights Watch 2008). The referendum was blocked. Chavez accepts the loss but makes it clear that he would continue to fight. In 2009, a referendum including an amendment to abolish term limits was passed (Human Rights Watch 2008). Chavez, excited about the victory, promises to stay in power for the next decade. Chavez ended up staying in power until he died in 2013 (https://www.cfr.org/timeline/venezuelas-chavez-era). Chavez’s vice president (Nicolas Maduro) then takes over until elections are held. Maduro wins by a narrow victory (https://www.cfr.org/timeline/venezuelas-chavez-era). He stays in power until 2019. While Chavez is currently dead, his legacy of authoritarianism in Venezuela is still very much alive.
Hi Tori! I found your blog post about Venezuela to be very informative. Previously, I had little knowledge of the political history of Venezuela outside of its dependence on oil. The resource curse has had unfortunate consequences on Venezuela’s economy and democracy. The resource curse occurs when a state is heavily dependent on one resource or industry, making its economy vulnerable to the fluctuating success of that industry. Most commonly the resource curse is seen in states that are heavily dependent on the production and exportation of oil, like in Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez was able to gain political support in times of economic hardship, due to the volatility of oil prices. To withstand the attacks of authoritarian regimes, states that are dependent on oil must have strong democratic guardrails against autocratic consolidation. Diversifying the national economy would also likely prove to be a good deterrent of stealth authoritarianism because the economy is less likely to be susceptible to long periods of economic downturn, which creates a vulnerable environment for authoritarians to take advantage of.
Hey Tori! I found your blog post about Hugo Chavez and his era of Stealth Authoritarianism in Venezuela quite insightful. I had only known a little about the political and economic climate of Venezuela before reading your post and I was not aware of the way that Hugo Chavez was originally jailed for an attempted coup before he came to power through democratic means. For the citizens that were unhappy with the government I am sure that this risky act gave them some political enthusiasm that the regime could change and that their conditions could improve. I was also unaware of their intense dependence on oil. While oil is extremely valuable and can bolster the economy of a smaller, relatively weaker Latin American country on the global stage, the reliance on this resource can lead to dependence on this resource and can lead to economic ruin without diversification of the economy. Due to the volatility of the regime and of oil prices when Hugo Chavez made his successful bid for president, Venezuelans were likely given hope again. Chavez continually used democratic methods to succeed in his political career such as in 2009 when a referendum was passed to abolish term limits. Stealth authoritarianism through democratic means is a very interesting facet of democratic erosion to consider and the case of Hugo Chavez offers great insight into the methods authoritarian leaders use to assert their political aspirations on the government. Venezuelans originally saw Hugo Chavez as a beacon of hope in a volatile political and economic time for their country and Chavez was able to leverage this and gain massive political success and authoritarian control through largely democratic means. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post as this is a very interesting case study on stealth authoritarianism!