Political successions are rarely easy when a charismatic leader dies. This is the case of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela according to Whittier College Professor of Political Science Deborah L. Norden. Plagued by 500% inflation, declining oil prices, and failed economic policies, Venezuela finds itself in deep political and economic turmoil. Norden explains some of the reasons for the country's nosedive.
Once Latin America’s model of democratic and economic stability, Venezuela is now imploding. According to the IMF, 2016 inflation rates are likely to range close to 500%, and may reach as high as 1640% in 2017. While this means that money rapidly loses value, the fact is that there is little to buy, anyway. Long lines form outside of supermarkets, as people wait their turns to buy the few products scattered on largely empty shelves. By some estimates, three-quarters of Venezuelans now live in poverty.
The political arena exhibits a similarly profound level of crisis. President Nicolas Maduro and the opposition-led National Assembly essentially at war. Maduro’s administration seeks to govern by decree, bypassing the legislature entirely and even blocking legislators from office. From the other side, the opposition is pursuing a recall referendum to oust Maduro and, hopefully, allow new elections. The government has sought to block the referendum however possible.
So, what happened to Venezuela? Some point to declining oil prices and failed economic policies, while others blame the authoritarian tendencies of the chavista regime, or even earlier party elites. While all of these have contributed, one critical factor that has often been ignored has to do with the intrinsic difficulty of taking power after the death of a charismatic leader. In other words, one of Maduro’s greatest problems was simply that he followed Hugo Chávez into the presidency.
Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez first captured the public eye in February 1992, as the dynamic spokesman for a failed coup attempt. Forced to accept defeat, his public surrender included the fateful words, “for now.” Chávez eventually fulfilled his promise to return when he won the 1998 presidential election. Bolstered by the devotion of Venezuela’s marginalized poor, Chávez spearheaded a new constitution that replaced the old bicameral legislature with a single National Assembly, effectively ousting the incumbent political elites, and concentrated power in the presidency. Chávez also brought numerous military allies into his administration, and redirected troops toward social “missions” such as building schools and distributing food. In other words, Chávez deliberately cultivated the armed forces as a political partner, rather than a neutral professional force. Publically, Chávez laced his discourse with equal measures of venom against Venezuelan elites and the “imperial” United States, and affection for the poorer, darker masses of his own country. Before too long, Venezuela had become deeply polarized between the chavistas and anti-chavistas.
When Chávez died of cancer in 2013, he left this divided and economically struggling country to his designated successor, Nicolas Maduro. While Maduro did win the hastily convened presidential elections, the margin was considerably smaller than that boasted by Chávez in any of his multiple elections from 1998 on. There were also other indicators that Maduro was bound to have a rough path. Successful transitions from charismatic leaders tend to rely on three primary factors: (1) a demonstrated close relationship with charismatic leader; (2) institutionalization of the new political order; (3) reliable military loyalties. With respect to the first of these, Maduro may have been a close ally, but he was neither a close family member (spouse or child) nor a founding member of the revolutionary movement. The highly personalistic character of Chávez regime also left doubts regarding the institutionalization of the new regime and military loyalty.
Undeniably, falling oil prices in the context of overwhelming reliance on oil profits to fund the economy have been devastating to Venezuela’s economy. Policies that discouraged investment and postponed adjusting the fixed exchange rate in a timely manner have also contributed to the crisis. From the political side, confrontational discourse and apparently punitive policies against opposition politicians clearly hindered any potential for inter-party collaboration and problem-solving. Yet, much of Venezuela’s current crisis can be traced to the nature of this transition: successions are rarely easy when a charismatic leader dies.
