The Promise and Perils of Radical Left Populism: The Case of Venezuela

Gabriel Hetland

doi:10.5195/jwsr.2018.868

Abstract

Mainstream critics argue that populism inevitably leads to economic disaster and political authoritarianism. Venezuela is often pointed to as proof of this. Yet, while the profound crisis gripping Venezuela is undeniable, comprehensive analysis of Chavismo shows that populism, and specifically the radical left populism found in Venezuela, is more ambiguous. From 2005-2013 radical left populism in Venezuela reduced poverty and inequality, deepened democracy, and built popular support for a “transition to socialism.” These gains were erased in the post-2014 crisis, which revealed two flaws of the Chavista model hidden by its earlier success: its unsustainable material foundation and inability to overcome the statist trap. For radical left populism to achieve its potential, and avoid peril, these two problems must be effectively addressed.

Highlights

Mainstream critics argue that populism inevitably leads to economic disaster and political authoritarianism
Venezuela’s economy rebounded from crisis-induced contractions of 8.9% and 7.8% in 2002 and 2003, respectively, to achieve 4.1% average annual growth from 2005-2013.1 Other indicators of positive economic performance are the significant increase in foreign reserves from 2002-2013;2 achieving higher growth in the private versus public, and non-oil versus oil, sectors (Weisbrot et al 2009); and, markedly lower inflation during Chávez’s entire tenure versus the 1980s and 1990s
Chavismo’s success during its golden age shows that radical left populism can reduce poverty and inequality, deepen democracy, facilitate movement towards “twenty-first century socialism,” and become a hegemonic force. This challenges the mainstream critique of populism, according to which it inevitably leads to economic disaster and political authoritarianism

Summary

Introduction

Mainstream critics argue that populism inevitably leads to economic disaster and political authoritarianism. Venezuela’s crisis makes it impossible to see Chavismo as unambiguous proof that “another world is possible” and that the radical left populism found in Chávez-era Venezuela provides a clear path to this world.

Results

Conclusion