Comparison of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro’s Leaderships
Introduction
Hugo Chavez seems to have had more elements of democracy compared to Maduro’s. For that reason, Venezuela appears to have moved from a democratic to an authoritarian form of leadership. During Chavez’s reign, people were more involved in decision-making processes in the country compared to Maduro’s. With a democratic government, Venezuela appears to have achieved more economic success compared to the authoritarian regime. Many elements of authoritarianism are evident in Maduro’s leadership. Such include the imprisonment of political opponents and many other forms of dictatorship. Other factors include the use of significantly strong force on street protesters. The strong force is evidenced by factors such as the killing of tens of protestors in the past few years. Maduro has also postponed several regional elections in a bid to avoid adverse events that might come with the elections. It seems the president thought that the public was unhappy for several reasons. For that reason, he feared that people could implement changes to the government if given a chance. This paper covers the significant similarities and differences evident in the leadership of Hugo Chavez and that of Maduro.
Differences
Elections have, for a significantly long time been the most significant democratic way of expressing public opinion. Any effort to limit people from exercising people’s democratic right to vote portrays authoritarianism. Venezuela has a special legislative body that supplements the country’s parliament (Romero and Víctor 165). That is one of the significant elements that define Venezuela’s democracy. However, with Maduro’s leadership, elections to the special legislative body have been associated with substantial allegations of rigging. Maduro has also gone to the extent of amending the country’s constitution in a bid to expand the country’s executive powers (Romero and Víctor 167). The concentration of power at the executive and limiting people’s participation in political processes is another significant factor that defines authoritarian governments. Therefore, that is enough reason to say that Maduro’s leadership is stricter compared to Chavez’s. That conclusion is based on the fact that such events were unseen or unheard of during Chavez’s leadership (Mijares 74). One of the significant challenges associated with the bid to re-democratize the country is the fact that Maduro already has many and strong supporters who encourage Venezuela to fall lower into the pit of authoritarianism.
Maduro’s leadership is associated with many significant economic challenges. The 2014 recession experienced in the country as a result of many factors, among them the significant fall in oil prices globally. Regulations on its currency also had substantial adverse effects on the country’s economic status (Romero and Víctor 170). They lead to one of the significant inflations in Venezuela’s history. The International Monetary Fund I among the many major organizations that noted the adverse economic events associated with Maduro’s leadership. The significant rise in consumer prices is among the significant events that had adverse effects on Venezuela’s citizens (Romero and Víctor 176). More than 70 per cent of the citizens lost an average of 20 per cent bodyweight between 2015 and 2016. The event was a result of the significant decline in the food supply in the country, something that was associated with the government’s poor economic policies.
Hugo Chavez served as Venezuela’s president from 1999 to 2013. Chavez died in power. His era is significantly different from that of Maduro in terms of democracy/authoritarianism. Many people in Venezuela believe that the country’s socialism is mostly a result of Chavez’s efforts (Selçuk 571). Chavez is perceived as a legend in Venezuela for doing, among other things, transforming the country’s economic and political landscape. The president channelled significant amounts of national resources to social programs in a bid to promote a socialist system of government in the country. He also nationalized significantly large numbers of industries. Chavez’s leadership was associated with many positive factors related to the country’s economy. His administration reduced the rate of unemployment by more than half. The income per capita also rose to about twice the level he found it. Other positive factors included the decline of mortality rates, improvement of education, and the fall of poverty rate (Romero and Víctor 183). The positive factors portray the positive side of Chavez’s leadership as opposed to Maduro’s administration which is associated with significantly high rates of inflation and increased consumer process, as well the deterioration of the country’s currency (Romero and Víctor 185). Chavez also attracted significant support from the working classes and the poor by imposing significant opposition against conservatives and elites in the country. The opposition was also because the stated groups of people tried to overthrow his government at some point.
Hugo Chavez is perceived as a leader of charisma. He could attract the support of people from different backgrounds into his political cause. That factor significantly differentiates him from Maduro, who uses some authoritarian strategies such as the compelling of security forces to use excessive force against protesters (Selçuk 575). Chavez’s significant connection with the working class and the poor is due to many factors, including the fact that the president grew up in a low-income family in the Venezuelan countryside. To the poor people, Chavez was their hero whom they trusted in representing their interests. The poor in Venezuela had been neglected for a significantly long time, something that made them see Chavez’s rise to power as a new dawn.
Chavez applied many strategies that ensured that every Venezuelan benefited from the country’s vast oil reserves. The rise in global oil prices has always had a positive impact on Venezuela’s economic development (Selçuk 579). The unprecedented oil boom was one of Chavez’s significant assets. Through Chavez’s economic policies, Venezuela’s treasury received trillions of dollars as a result of the oil boom. Chavez believed that the country could best benefit from its vast oil resources if Venezuela had the highest possible control over global oil prices. Chavez had significant abilities as the president, but that did not make him take undemocratic approaches to handle resources in a manner that favours himself over the countrymen (Romero and Víctor 189). Maduro’s leadership has been unable to prevent Venezuela’s economy from the adverse effects of the fluctuations in oil prices. One of the significant events that support this point is the fall in global oil prices in 2014 that led to the fall in Venezuela’s economy as well.
Similarities
Both Chavez and Maduro’s leaderships are associated with elements of authoritarianism at least to some extent. Chavez’s leadership is associated with significant aspects of authoritarianism, which include the stacking of the judiciary with his political allies, passing of legislation to limit the media from questioning the government, and the limiting of many other factors that checked the excesses of his leadership (Buxton 3). Despite the many negative factors, he still appeared to be more democratic compared to Maduro. That is based on the fact that he did not interfere much with the electoral system. It seems that for Chavez, elections were the only way to create effective leadership. Chavez’s respect for democracy was so significant that it could be seen by influential leaders such as Jimmy Carter who once made a positive comment about an election that was conducted in Venezuela during Chavez’s tenure (Buxton 4). Carter referred to one of the elections as ‘best in the world,’ in which Chavez had emerged the winner.
The many mass protests experienced in Venezuela against various elements of poor leadership during Maduro’s era show that a significant percentage of the public is discontent with the administration. However, the president appears to have applied every idea possible to limit people from expressing their dissatisfaction with some factors associated with the government. That kind of leadership is similar to those of leaders such as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. The two appear to practice what is referred to as authoritarian democracy (Buxton 6). Erdoğan is also accused of many elements of authoritarianism such as the limiting of the freedom of media, limiting the judicial powers, and imprisoning of significant opposition leaders. The leader has achieved most of the stated factors by expanding executive powers. That enables the president to perpetuate some undemocratic factors without being questioned by the judiciary and other oversight organs common in a democratic country (Corrales and Michael 6). The elements of authoritarianism in Venezuela are so significant that they can be seen by some parties outside Venezuela as well. The United States is among the many outsiders who have identified many undemocratic elements in Maduro’s leadership.
Both Chavez and Maduro were against the influence of the United States on the issues of Venezuela. The positives associated with Hugo Chavez’s leadership appear to be independent of the president’s relationship with the United States. Chavez was also a strong enemy of US influence. That point is based on many factors, among them the event in which Chavez referred to President George W. Bush as “the devil” (Bray 7). That happened during a meeting at the United Nations. For the case of Maduro, Trump’s leadership has made significant steps in a bid to re-democratize Venezuela. That idea is always based on the understanding that democratic leadership is associated with more positive factors compared to an authoritarian. The most significant difference between the two is the fact that democratic governments have more respect for humanity and other factors that batter the lives of humans at least to some extent (Buxton 6). The United States government tried to use several economic and diplomatic tools for that purpose but experienced adverse outcomes. The main aim was to try to convince Maduro to drop his power grabs, but the president was unwilling to respond accordingly. The president decided to hold a vote for the legislative body, something that provoked the US to impose sanctions against Maduro’s leadership (Oxford Analytica). The sanctions targeted the president and his senior officials and Venezuela’s state-owned oil company. Trump’s administration also stated that it is ready to use harsher punishments if Maduro’s government refuses to democratize the country. The US president said that his government would use every possible strategy to re-democratize Venezuela, including the use of military force (Oxford Analytica). The president also stated that the United States would have a peaceful talk with Venezuela’s president only if Maduro agrees to restore democracy in his country.
However, some influential parties in the United States and Venezuela disagree with Trump’s decisions saying that the issue between the United States and Venezuela are based on the difference in government systems between the two countries (Oxford Analytica). The United States has, for a significantly long time, been an enemy of socialist governments. It means that there is a likelihood that the conflict is not purely as a result of Maduro’s authoritarianism. If the dispute is based on the difference in the system of power, Trump’s involvement in the issue could only give Maduro more substantial publicity as a brave opponent to America’s influence (Oxford Analytica). Even if that is the case, many adverse effects of authoritarianism are still likely to have negative impacts on Maduro’s leadership. One of them is the deepening of economic crisis, something that is likely to alienate the president from his political base (Oxford Analytica). Maduro has appointed many members of the military into power, something which shows that he might he is losing trust in civilian politicians.
Despite the many positive economic factors associated with Chavez’s leadership, the president is also associated with negatives such as the lack of economic diversification during his tenure. Many experts believe that Chavez was innovative enough in the use of national resources but inadequately invested in economic diversification outside the oil sector (Anselmi 410). Throughout his leadership, Venezuela imported many essential products, including food and medicine. Economic diversification could have saved the country from the many adverse effects associated with the 2014 fall oil prices. The economic crisis of 2014 caused a significant shortage of food and medicine in Venezuela and the event that led to the rise in cases of malnutrition (Anselmi 415). Significantly large numbers of people suffered from malaria and related disease despite Venezuela being one of the first countries to eradicate the disease in most of its highly populated areas. For that reason, it is hard to place all the blame on Maduro’s leadership even though most of the crisis happened during his tenure (Hellinger and Anthony 7). That is based on the fact that most of the Venezuelan economy has always relied on oil for most of the 20th century. The stability of the country’s economy, therefore, depends to a large extent on the prevailing oil prices. However, several experts blame Maduro for failing to put in place significant measures to address the adverse effects of the fall of the economy. The president is blamed for failing to end the country’s currency exchange and cracking down on corruption, things that adversely affect the country’s consumer prices.
Conclusion
Both Chavez and Maduro’s leaderships are associated with significant positive and negative factors. For that reason, one can hardly identify better leadership from the two. However, the paper shows that Chavez’s government had more elements of democracy compared to that of Maduro. Chavez appears to have had more respect for the electoral system compared to Maduro. Even though both leaders were authoritarian at least to some extent, Maduro disrespects even the electoral systems as well, as evidenced by the many accusations of rigging reported in most elections held during his tenure. Chavez, on the other hand, significantly promoted electoral legitimacy so much that it could be seen by significant parties such as Jimmy Carter. In conclusion, the best government is the one that intends to create the most conducive environment for the survival of its citizens.
Works Cited
Anselmi, Manuel. “Post-populism in Latin America: On Venezuela after Chávez.” Chinese Political Science Review 2.3 (2017): 410-426.
Bray, Chloe. “Bolivarian Nightmare: Hugo Chávez, the United States, and the collapse of Venezuela.” (2019).
Buxton, Julia. “Situation Normal in Venezuela: All Fouled Up: Amid a historic crisis, Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro hangs on with the help of a stalwart ally: the country’s long dysfunctional opposition.” NACLA Report on the Americas 49.1 (2017): 3-6.
Corrales, Javier, and Michael Penfold. Dragon in the tropics: Venezuela and the legacy of Hugo Chávez. Brookings Institution Press, 2015.
Hellinger, Daniel, and Anthony Petros Spanakos. “The Legacy of Hugo Chávez.” (2017): 4-16.
Mijares, Víctor M. “Venezuela’s Post-Chávez Foreign Policy.” Americas Quarterly 9.1 (2015): 74-81.
Oxford Analytica. “US sanctions on Venezuela may prove counterproductive.” Emerald Expert Briefings oxan-es.
Romero, Carlos A., and Víctor M. Mijares. “From Chávez to Maduro: Continuity and change in Venezuelan foreign policy.” Contexto internacional 38.1 (2016): 165-201.
Selçuk, Orçun. “Strong presidents and weak institutions: populism in Turkey, Venezuela and Ecuador.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 16.4 (2016): 571-589.