Democratic Crisis in Venezuela

Treka Franklin

POLS 3380

04/07/18

Democratic Crisis in Venezuela

        Venezuela was seen as a model of Democracy through the years of the Cold War, but through the many crises occurring in the country, it became polarized. People began to question President Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution, and were concerned if he was transforming the country back into the Democratic style of government, or slowly turning away from Democratic principles and institutions. The political rights of citizens were also a concern, the opposition continued to cause conflict by initiating counter-marches and protests. The documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised gives a narrative on what provoked the 2002 coup against President Chavez. Political strategies were upheld by the privileged, Venezuelan and U.S. media outlets, and the U.S. government. Analyzing the interests of the individuals who were against Chavez alongside his own political perspectives and philosophies will help comprehend the part they played in planning a coup through an undisciplined administration.

        Venezuela is mainly torn between the levels of class. In times of a failing economy, a corrupted government, and an increase in poverty, the government structure has been defined by political parties, military involvement, and a high rate of political leaders. The two political parties Acción Democrática (AD) and Coepi have left many Venezuelans dissatisfied with leadership and wanted a democracy. This left people with having to choose between supporting a democracy with AD and Copei, or supporting a democracy type of government without them. With drops in oil-revenue, and an increase in poverty, the two dominant political parties were seen as unstable and corrupt. For the majority of the country’s history middle class and upper class citizens have had control of the government. The election of President Hugo Chavez brought change in leadership, as he did not come from the upper or middle class, growing up in poverty. President Chavez advocated for the poor people of Venezuela, and favored social reform. Chavez spoke anti-elite messages and capitalized on the Venezuelan frustration of the traditional style of politics. He received support from the poor, yet resentment began to develop from the middle class and upper class.1

With its reliance on oil falling under the control of the Venezuelan government, the U.S. has high stakes invested in the decisions and policies that are made in regard to how its oil market operates. The reason that the U.S. had built up a lasting association with Venezuela is on the grounds that the U.S. what's more, the nation's energy base, verifiably AD and COPEI, who controlled the oil, dependably worked out commonly beneficial arrangements.1 To put it plainly, the U.S. has shaped a union with the privileged, similar individuals who now oppose Chavez.

        Unpopularity grew with one-sided media coverage of Chavez’s government, and also with the declining economy. The Bolivarian movement and economic policies of Chavez show his desire of the poor versus the wealthy. His opposition was so irritated that a temporary ouster of Chavez from government was attempted. Chavez is portrayed as a fascist and is continually targeted by the Venezuelan media. With the upper class owning much of the media, it is no surprise that Chavez was depicted in a negative way. Foes of Chavez heavily relied on mass media, and used the media to illustrate how much they opposed the current government. The media influenced the beliefs of many Venezuelan people and played an important role of the attempted overthrow of Chavez. All narratives, investigations, and interviews share the same purpose: to relay messages of a dysfunctional government and ruin the president’s popular support. The acts of the Venezuelan media went further than any typical biased reporting and journalism.