April 2015, Volume 26, Number 2 $13.00
The Authoritarian Resurgence
Lilia Shevtsova on Russia Javier Corrales on Venezuela
Abbas Milani/Alex Vatanka on Iran Frederic Wehrey on Saudi Arabia
Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement
Michael C. Davis Victoria Tin-bor Hui
The Freedom House Survey for 2014
Arch Puddington
Zoltan Barany on Transitions from Military Rule
Yun-han Chu & Bridget Welsh on East Asia’s Millennials
Elisabete Azevedo-Harman on Mozambique
Pierre Englebert on Zimbabwe
Harley Balzer on Vladimir Putin
Transitional Justice and Its Discontents
Duncan McCargo
Autocratic Legalism
in Venezuela
Javier Corrales
Javier Corrales is Dwight W. Morrow 1895 Professor of Political Science
at Amherst College. He is the coauthor of Dragon in the Tropics:
Hugo Chávez and the Political Economy of Revolution in Venezuela
(with Michael Penfold, 2011). A second edition with a new subtitle, The
Legacy of Hugo Chávez, will appear in 2015. Portions of this essay
draw from these books.
The concept of hybrid regimes—those that exhibit both democratic and
authoritarian features simultaneously—is by now well established in
the field of comparative politics. Hybrid regimes are sometimes called
“competitive authoritarian” because, while the ruling party competes
in elections (usually winning), the president is granted an array of autocratic
powers that erode checks and balances. Such regimes are now
common across the developing world. If we use Freedom House’s classification
of Partly Free as a proxy for hybrid regimes, then in 2014 they
were slightly more common than classic authoritarian regimes.
The dynamics of hybrid regimes—why some remain stable over time
while others become either more democratic or more autocratic—are less
well understood. Venezuela under Hugo Chávez (1999–2013) is a case of
a hybrid regime that rapidly moved toward increasing authoritarianism.
In the Freedom in the World report for 1999–2000, Freedom House lowered
Venezuela’s rating from Free to Partly Free. Venezuela’s turn toward
greater autocracy accelerated over the years, reaching new levels under
Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro (2013–present). Today, Venezuela
ranks as the least free of all Partly Free regimes in Latin America.
This raises two questions. First, what are the mechanisms by which a
competitive authoritarian regime turns more autocratic? By definition, a
hybrid regime is one in which the executive branch concentrates powers
to the detriment of nonstate and opposition actors. But what else needs
to happen for us to say that it has turned more autocratic? This essay
examines Venezuela since 1999 to show how such a transformation can
Journal of Democracy Volume 26, Number 2 April 2015
© 2015 National Endowment for Democracy and Johns Hopkins University Press
The Authoritarian Resurgence
38 Journal of Democracy
take place. My argument focuses on the use, abuse, and non-use of the
rule of law.
Second, what were the causes of Venezuela’s rapid move toward
greater authoritarianism, especially in the last five years of chavismo?
Drawing from my previous work (often in collaboration with other
authors), I offer two basic arguments. One focuses on domestic factors:
The ruling party’s declining electoral competitiveness since the
late 2000s, together with path dependence, helps to explain Venezuela’s
turn toward greater authoritarianism. The other focuses on foreign
policy: By 2010, Venezuela had succeeded in creating a foreign
policy that shielded it from international pressures. Although other
factors were no doubt at play, these two served as the most essential
drivers.
During Chávez’s presidency, Venezuela became the paradigmatic
Latin American case of competitive authoritarianism. The ruling party,
known since 2007 as the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV),
competes in elections against a legal multiparty opposition, as one would
expect in a democracy. At the same time, the PSUV helps the executive
branch to weaken checks and balances, treat the opposition unfavorably,
and reduce the autonomy of civil society. Over the years, the regime’s
autocratic practices have become more pronounced.
Three Key Elements
The primary mechanism facilitating Venezuela’s increasing authoritarianism
could be termed “autocratic legalism.” Autocratic legalism
has three key elements: the use, abuse, and non-use (in Spanish, desuso)
of the law in service of the executive branch.
Let us begin with the use of autocratic laws. Since it first came
to power, the ruling party has taken advantage of its dominance in
the country’s legislative bodies (the 1999 Constituent Assembly, the
1999–2000 “small congress” or congresillo, and the 2000–present national
legislature), in conjunction with its total control of the Supreme
Court since 2005, to enact laws that empower the executive branch
at the expense of other branches of government. By the time of Hugo
Chávez’s death in March 2013, there were many such autocratic laws
on the books:
1) The 1999 Constitution, despite many democratic innovations, increased
the power of the president: It eliminated the Senate (an important
veto player); banned public funding for political organizations (which
is interpreted to mean political parties); and empowered the president to
call for referendums to recall legislators, dissolve the legislature under
certain conditions, and propose constitutional amendments and rewrites.
2) Enabling laws grant the president the right to rule by decree. The
chavista-dominated legislature passed enabling laws four times under
39Javier Corrales
Chávez—in 1999, 2000, 2007, and 2010—and one time (so far) under
Maduro—in 2013.
3) The Organic Law of Telecommunications (2000) allows the government
to suspend or revoke broadcasting concessions to private outlets
if it is “convenient for the interests of the nation, or if public order
and security demand it.” This law was modified in 2011 to include all
audiovisual production (including cable TV) and to reduce concessions
to radio networks from 25 to 15 years.
4) The Law for Social Responsibility (2004) bans the broadcasting
of material that could incite or promote hatred and violence. It was extended
in 2010 to apply to the Internet. Accordingly, electronic media
may not transmit messages that “foment anxiety in the public or disturb
public order,” “incite or promote disobedience to the current legal order,”
“refuse to recognize legitimately constituted authority,” or “incite
or promote hatred or intolerance.”
5) The 2005 penal-code reform expanded the desacato (insult) law,
which makes it illegal to be “disrespectful of government officials,” to
cover an even greater number of officials to whom this law applies. It
also seriously restricted the use of public spaces for protesting.
6) Laws governing “communal councils” (the Organic Law of Popular
Power [2010], the Organic Law of Public Planning [2010], the Organic
Law of Social Auditing [2010], and the Organic Law of Communes
[2010]) provide public funding and legal prerogatives to these
ill-defined bodies, which are required to work with the state to offer
services, carry out public works, and participate in community development.
In doing so, they often supersede the roles of elected mayors and
municipal councils. None of these laws requires the councils to hold
competitive elections for their representatives.
7) The Law for the Defense of Political Sovereignty and National
Self-Determination (2010) blocks Venezuelan human-rights defenders
from receiving international assistance. Nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) that “defend political rights” or “monitor the performance of
public bodies” are barred from receiving any foreign funding. Foreigners
invited to Venezuela by such groups can be summarily expelled from
the country if they express opinions that “offend the institutions of state,
top officials or attack the exercise of sovereignty.” The NGOs could
face stiff fines, and their directors could lose their right to run for public
office for up to eight years.
8) The Law Against Illicit Exchange Transactions (2010) grants the
government a monopoly over all currency trades, including government
bonds. Foreign currency from exports must be sold to the Central Bank
of Venezuela (BCV) at the official exchange rate. The law also bans
“offers” in foreign currency made between Venezuelan entities or individuals
for the sale of goods and services.
9) The Law of Partial Reform of the Law of Political Parties, Meet-
40 Journal of Democracy
ings and Protests (2011) bans deputies from any conduct that departs
from the “political orientation and positions” adopted by their party during
election times. This law is intended to deter legislators from voting
in opposition to the party line.
10) The Organic Law of Fair Prices (2014) is an update to the 2011
Law of Fair Costs and Prices, which legalized the regime’s broad system
of price controls and essentially did away with the price system.
The 2014 version stiffened the earlier law, expanding the number of
infractions to include the reselling of “essential” merchandise and the
commission of acts causing “economic destabilization.” It also bans
profits over 30 percent. Sanctions include fees, imprisonment, confiscation
of assets, and the like. Furthermore, with the addition of “economic
destabilization”—which can be interpreted to mean even the
spreading of a rumor—the law expands the subjective justifications
that the state can invoke in order to sanction private agents. Since
2011, this law has also been one of the main causes of shortages and
informal markets, and an often used justification for cracking down on
the private sector.
Venezuela’s arsenal of autocratic laws exhibits two features. First,
the autocratic aspect of these laws is not always overt. It is often buried
among an array of clauses or articles that empower citizens or other
political groups, and these surrounding clauses encourage empowered
groups to support these laws, at least initially. But there is always one
clause that ends up empowering the executive branch far more than other
actors, which is what makes these laws so autocratic. Second, these laws
have been enacted in a constitutional manner, at least insofar as they have
been duly approved by constitutionally sanctioned processes. This paradox
poses a twofold problem for the opposition: 1) Such laws bolster the
state’s capacity to control nonstate actors, and 2) they cannot be easily
challenged because they have emerged through constitutional channels.
Abusing the Law: “Communicational Hegemony”
The second element of autocratic legalism is the abuse of the law,
meaning the inconsistent and biased implementation of laws and regulations.
In Venezuela, this has occurred in many domains, but is especially
salient in the media world, and it helps to explain how, under Chávez, the
balance between private independent media and government-controlled
media shifted in favor of the latter. Today, an ordinary Venezuelan with
little access to the Internet is more likely to be exposed to public or proPSUV
media, which is usually more easily available and economically
accessible than private independent media. The consequence has been
a significant decline in press pluralism. This shift in the media, known
locally as “communicational hegemony,” has been a deliberate strategy
of chavismo.1
41Javier Corrales
By 2014, through the use and abuse of the law, communicational hegemony
was extensive in both print media and television. For instance,
in 1998, there were 89 newspapers in Venezuela.2
All were private and
independent. By 2014, Venezuela had 102 newspapers, of which 56
percent were privately owned; 8 percent were state-owned; 15 percent
were “not independent,” meaning that they systematically leaned proPSUV;
and 22 percent were “undetermined,” meaning that they were
either too small or unavailable online to determine their orientation.3
State-owned newspapers are atypical in democracies. In Venezuela,
they are also overtly biased. While the private press is often criticized
for being too prone to denuncias (accusations)—seen as both a sign of
its non-neutrality and proof of the presence of democracy in Venezuela—a
state-owned press that systematically censors positive information
about actors other than the state is no indication of democratic vitality.
The Maduro administration is committed to continuing the policy of
expanding the public press. It has already established public newspapers
in the cities of Valencia, Maracay, Cojedes, Guárico, and Petare, and
in 2014 the president stated that he wanted to have one in every town.
The shrinking of independent media is even starker in the realm of
television. In 1998, there were 24 television channels nationwide, of
which only 3 were public (and they were nonbiased). In 2014, there
were 105 TV channels, but only 46 percent were private. (If one looks
at local channels alone, the decline in the share of independent media
is less steep, from 50 percent in 1998 to 39 percent in 2014.) Stateowned
channels now account for 17 percent of all television channels
(14 percent if one looks only at local and regional television channels).
In addition, under chavismo a new category emerged—“communitarian
channels,” located mostly in smaller cities, accounting for 37 percent
of television stations in 2014. Communitarian channels technically
are supposed to be independent, and many of them struggle to assert
some autonomy vis-`a-vis the state.4
But only progovernment channels
receive state funding and support. Given that there are few other funding
sources, communitarian channels inevitably end up complying with
state directives.
1998 2014
Print
All newspapers nationwide 100% 56%
Of which, local and regional newspapers 100% 49%
Television
All television channels nationwide 88% 46%
Of which, local and regional channels 50% 39%
Note: Independent means 1) privately owned; 2) covering politics; 3) not communitarian;
and 4) not systematically censoring information that is favorable to the opposition.
Source: See endnote 2.
Table 1—Independent Print and TV Media (Percentage)
42 Journal of Democracy
Venezuela’s rising communicational hegemony has come about as
a result of both the use and abuse of the law.5
The government has
used existing regulations to set up public newspapers. Several of these
circulate free of charge, easily displacing private competition—a practice
that is within the law, but is meant to crowd out the independent
media. The state also abuses the law by harassing many independent
newspapers, imposing legal fines based on allegations of corruption
or violation of the media law, or arbitrarily denying access to foreign
exchange, which is necessary to buy paper. According to Reporters
Without Borders, at least 37 newspapers have had to reduce circulation
due to lack of paper.6
Other tactics have included preventing state
agencies from buying ads in targeted private newspapers; informally
pressuring editors to publish the “right” stories; and banning reporters
from covering government events. The regime’s goal is to abuse the
law to force private independent newspapers into financial distress,
thereby encouraging cutbacks (as in the case of the daily Tal Cual,
which had to scale back to weekly publication in early 2015) or even
the sale of a paper to new owners (as with El Universal). If a newspaper’s
editorial line changes, the government will forgive the fines and
grant it foreign exchange.
The same use and abuse of the law has been applied to television.
The big decline in pluralism started in 2003, when Diosdado Cabello,
the second most powerful chavista politician today and president of the
National Assembly, took charge of the National Telecommunications
Commission (Conatel), the agency that regulates broadcast television
and radio, and restructured media regulations. Conatel is now in charge
of determining whether a station qualifies as a communitarian channel
(and thus also whether it is eligible for state funding). Conatel has
also targeted private television channels by arbitrarily refusing to renew
their licenses (as with RCTV in 2007) or by levying excessive fees for
supposed violations of the media law (as with Globovisión until 2013).
In Venezuela, the only way that a television station can guarantee its
financial survival is by staying out of politics—that is, by self-censoring
(as Globovisión has done since it was sold to new owners in 2013) and
refraining from coverage of political events (as Venevisión and Televén
normally do).
This rise of state-owned and nonindependent media has had a clear
effect on information availability. In January 2015, for example, the
opposition held a major march in downtown Caracas. No television
channel broadcast the march or speeches, continuing instead with
regular programming. Later that day, Globovisión reported on the
opposition leaders’ statements, but for no more than five minutes.
In contrast, most public television stations broadcast the one-hourplus
speech that Maduro delivered the same day. Globovisión showed
Maduro’s speech live for fifteen minutes. Venevisión and Televén did
43Javier Corrales
not televise Maduro’s speech, due to their tacit agreement with the
state not to cover politics.
The Non-Use of the Law: Electoral Irregularities
The third element of autocratic legalism is, paradoxically, reliance
on illegality. This has been especially significant in electoral politics.
One of Chávez’s most important authoritarian legacies is an electoral
environment plagued by irregularities and governed by a biased regulatory
agency, the National Electoral Council (CNE). Indeed, in the
sixteen elections held during the chavista era, by my count there have
been more than 45 types of electoral irregularities, usually involving
biased enforcement of electoral laws and often outright violations—
for example, the government allows the PSUV to exceed spending or
airtime limits; allows polling centers to stay open past their scheduled
hours; arbitrarily bans candidates or observers; manipulates voting rules
to the ruling party’s advantage; cajoles state employees or welfare recipients
to vote a certain way; harasses voters at the polls; threatens to
deny funds to districts that elect opposition candidates; and conducts
cursory audits of results.7
Over time, some irregularities get corrected
for good—often due to pressure from the opposition—but other types
persist, and new irregularities tend to emerge with each new election.8
This irregularity-prone electoral environment has only deteriorated
since Chávez’s death in March 2013, beginning with the election for
his successor the following month. In that contest, Maduro, who was
then acting president, prevailed over his opponent, Henrique Capriles
Radonski, by a mere 235,000 votes (a 1.5 percent margin). The opposition
claimed that, in the run-up to the election and on election day itself,
there were repeated and new irregularities (for example, PSUV sympathizers
were seen escorting voters to polls under the pretense of assisting
them; harassing electoral observers and voters; paying citizens to bring
people to the polls; and maybe even engaging in fraud at a few polling
centers), which gave Maduro his narrow victory. After the results
were announced, protests broke out in Caracas and several other cities.
The government put down the demonstrations; in the end, seven people
were killed and dozens were injured. The opposition called for a full
audit, which was refused (although the CNE did conduct an audit of the
electronic tallies versus the paper ballots), and then—for the first time
since 2005—the opposition challenged the election, formally calling for
the election either to be annulled or done over in roughly 5,700 voting
tables (in Venezuela, each voting table or mesa electoral is associated
with a particular touchscreen voting machine).
That request was also denied, so the opposition made a futile attempt
to take its fraud complaint to the Supreme Court. Venezuela’s courts
are a key element in the regime’s non-use of the rule of law. High-
44 Journal of Democracy
level judges have been overtly partisan since the government packed the
courts in 2004, and many lower-level judges are untenured and are often
penalized for ruling the wrong way. Furthermore, according to a recent
study, not one of the 45,474 rulings issued by the Supreme Court since
2005 has gone against the government.9
So it was no surprise that the
Court dismissed the opposition’s fraud suit.
While municipal elections the following December saw fewer cases of
irregularities at the ballot box, they did see the full force of state power
being leveraged in favor of PSUV candidates during the campaign period,
including overspending and the illegal use of public funds and state media.
Moreover, at the time of the election, the terms of three of the five
members of the CNE—a body with only one nongovernment representative—had
expired. With the 2013 elections, the Maduro administration
showed that it had not only inherited Chávez’s semi-authoritarian legacy,
but was building on it.
The heightening of autocratic legalism under Maduro has proved de-
stabilizing.10
To begin with, in early 2014 the opposition split over how
to respond to the faulty electoral process and the government’s refusal
to address irregularities, with one faction calling for and carrying out
street protests. The outbreak of popular demonstrations led to the worst
repression ever under chavismo, and perhaps under any elected government
in the country’s history.
Between February and April 2014, Venezuela was engulfed in demonstrations,
first launched by university students in the small western
cities of San Cristóbal and Mérida. The government harshly repressed
the initial round of protests, which only triggered more—this time coordinated
via social media, using the hashtag “#lasalida” (“the way out”).
Opposition hard-liners, including Leopoldo López (a former mayor of
the Chacao municipality of Caracas), María Corina Machado (an MP at
the time), and Antonio Ledezma (the mayor of metropolitan Caracas),
soon joined the fray, and the protest issues broadened to include the
economic slowdown, food shortages, and unreliable public services, as
well as rampant crime.
All told, roughly 800,000 people in at least sixteen states and 38
cities participated in protests for at least three months. Protesters set up
street barricades in mostly middle-class neighborhoods; some demonstrators
threw bottles, stones, and petrol bombs. The government sent in
the National Guard and the national police to put down the demonstrations,
and may have encouraged armed progovernment civilians (known
as colectivos) to intimidate protesters.11
According to a report by leading
human-rights organizations, the government forcibly broke up 34 percent
of these protests, far more than the most intense repression under
Chávez (7 percent in 2009), and detained more than 3,100 people.12
More surprisingly, the government went after opposition leaders, not
just ordinary protesters. López was arrested for “inciting violence,” de-
45Javier Corrales
spite a lack of any evidence other than his writings in support of a change
in government, which allegedly had “subliminally” incited the protesters.
Machado was accused of treason for speaking at the OAS about humanrights
abuses in Venezuela and was subsequently expelled from the National
Assembly. She and other opposition leaders have even been accused
of plotting to kill the president, and in December 2014 Machado
was officially indicted for conspiracy and treason. Ledezma was arrested
in late February 2015 on charges of plotting to overthrow the government.
Domestic and International Factors
If the use, abuse, and non-use of the law account for the mechanics
of Venezuela’s shift toward greater authoritarianism, what are the
causes behind it? The main domestic driver is a combination of path
dependence and declining electoral competitiveness, as Michael Penfold
and I argue in our forthcoming second edition of Dragon in the Tropics.
By path dependence, we mean that once sufficient domestic institutions
are established to permit the state to govern in authoritarian ways, these
institutions become the preferred instruments for making policy choices.
Given that Chávez had already erected the framework and acquired
the tools to facilitate government repression, the Maduro administration—because
it had the necessary institutions, legal instruments, and
a political ideology—naturally used them to crack down harder on the
opposition.
But a second important reason for the heightening of authoritarianism
is more systemic—namely, the decline in the ruling party’s electoral
competitiveness. In the 2006 presidential election, Chávez defeated
the opposition overwhelmingly with 63 percent of the vote. Since then,
however, the opposition has been steadily gaining ground on the PSUV
at the polls. The PSUV’s electoral decline slowed in the 2012 presidential
election, the last one in which Chávez competed (he won 55 percent
of the vote), but intensified immediately after Chávez’s death. In
the April 2013 presidential election, Maduro won just 51 percent of the
vote. Even though the PSUV performed much better in the December
2013 municipal elections, its gains were not substantial: If the votes for
all the opposition parties are tallied together, the PSUV’s margin of victory
was a mere 2.7 percentage points, a far cry from the double-digit
margins that it enjoyed in the mid-2000s.
As the ruling party in a competitive authoritarian regime loses its ability
to compete electorally, it has greater incentives to stress its authoritarian
side as a means of survival. It should come as no surprise that a hybrid
regime would opt to become more authoritarian when the traditional
voter enticements that it needs to compete for the vote (ideological appeal,
economic resources, policy innovation, and competent governance)
are unavailable or are becoming exhausted. Together with the availabil-
46 Journal of Democracy
ity of the tools of autocratic legalism, the PSUV’s electoral decline is the
most important cause for the intensification of repression under Maduro.
The second reason that Venezuela has managed to turn more authoritarian
is the creation of an international shield.13
During Chávez’s presidency,
Venezuela began using its foreign policy to build an “alliance of
tolerance”—that is, an alliance of countries unwilling to criticize Venezuela,
let alone join any international effort to sanction it for domestic
wrongdoings. In essence, Venezuela used its oil resources to expand this
alliance across Latin America and beyond. Between 2003 and 2012, the
country’s oil revenues vastly exceeded those of any other country in the
region—accounting for more than 30 percent of Venezuela’s GDP during
that time.14
But Venezuela has also experienced a steep decline in oil
production since 2000.15
Consequently, since then Venezuela has been
one of the two OPEC members that have most strongly advocated maximizing
oil prices, much to the frustration of oil-importing countries. In
order to improve its reputation among oil importers and build Venezuela’s
“soft power,” Chávez expanded foreign aid, which he touted as
promoting a more pro-poor form of development than Western aid.16
Building an “Alliance of Tolerance”
Chávez’s best-known foreign-aid program is Petrocaribe. Formed in
2005, this trade deal allows seventeen small Caribbean and Central American
countries to purchase subsidized oil from Venezuela under favorable
financial terms. Compared to similar earlier agreements, Petrocaribe increased
the number of country beneficiaries as well as the volume of oil
that they receive, raised the price subsidy, and made repayment terms even
more favorable for recipient countries. By 2013, Petrocaribe was supplying
59 percent of Cuba’s total oil consumption, 93 percent of Haiti’s, 70
percent of Nicaragua’s, and 13 percent of El Salvador’s.17
Venezuela has
similar oil-subsidy and soft-finance agreements with Argentina.18
Chávez’s expansive economic aid extended beyond Petrocaribe in at
least four additional domains: 1) allowing debt retirement, forgiveness,
or tolerance for countries that have trouble paying their debts; 2) making
Venezuela a major importer of goods and services (to the great benefit
of Brazil and Colombia); 3) opening the oil and energy sectors to allied
countries such as China, Brazil, Russia, and Iran; and 4) expanding international
information services (namely, Telesur).
The flow of petroproducts, petrosubsidies, petrodollars, and petrocontracts
from Venezuela to foreign countries won Chávez remarkable
diplomatic support. Even though many countries disliked Chávez’s
policy of keeping oil prices high and frowned on the restriction of civil
liberties inside Venezuela, his generous foreign economic aid was welcomed
by recipients as well as ideologues who saw the aid policy as
another example of the regime’s commitment to anticapitalism.
47Javier Corrales
Venezuela has also been known to threaten cutting economic ties
with developed nations as a way to secure support. For example, in 2014
Venezuela was rumored to have pressured the Netherlands into blocking
the extradition of Hugo Carvajal, the former head of Venezuelan military
intelligence, from Aruba (a Caribbean-island country that is part
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) to the United States by threatening
to ban Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever from operating in Venezuela.
In February 2015, a Spanish daily reported that the Venezuelan government
officially threatened several large Spanish multinationals with
expropriation if they did not pressure the Spanish government to adopt
a more pro-Venezuela policy.19
The establishment of Venezuela’s alliance of tolerance was facilitated
by the reluctance of Latin American governments, despite their commitment
to human rights, to censure sitting presidents for their failings.
Due in part to this regional reticence, the United States decided to take a
stronger stand, declaring Venezuela a “national security threat” in March
2015, thereby paving the way to put sanctions on seven key Venezuelan
officials. But Maduro will probably use this so-called U.S. aggression to
his advantage in order to justify further state encroachments.
Not all of Venezuela’s foreign-policy aims have been achieved. With
Venezuela’s foreign largesse, Chávez set out to do more than just establish
an alliance of tolerance. He wanted not only to preempt foreign critics,
but also to expand the number of like-minded regimes in the region. Venezuelan
foreign aid has contributed directly to the electoral campaigns of
chavista-like movements across Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Paraguay, and El Salvador) and even outside the region
(Spain), often with success. A recent study of Venezuela’s influence in El
Salvador shows how this petrodiplomacy works. Venezuelan aid helped El
Salvador to establish Alba Petróleos, a state-owned company that distributes
oil within the country. Alba Petróleos, which is run almost entirely by
El Salvador’s ruling party and therefore rarely audited, provides funding
mostly to municipalities governed by ruling-party mayors and also spends
heavily on social projects during electoral campaigns. The company does
not always pay back its debts to Venezuela, which Venezuela condones
(the alliance of tolerance works both ways).20
Despite some early successes (notably in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua),
the strategy of using foreign aid to create clone regimes has backfired.
In recent years, Venezuelan efforts to support particular political
factions abroad have generated virulent counterreactions in countries such
as Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Honduras, and Paraguay. Anti-chavista leaders
became all the more popular, and leftist candidates began to disavow
ties to chavismo. Furthermore, a number of Latin American notables, including
five former Latin American presidents, have criticized Maduro’s
2014–15 crackdown. In sum, Venezuela’s effort to mold clone regimes
has had mixed results at best, but its attempt to create an alliance of toler-
48 Journal of Democracy
ance has been a major success, enabling Chávez to rule more autocratically
without having to face much international criticism.
Beyond the Neighorhood
One of Chávez’s most important foreign-policy initiatives was the creation
of the television news channel Telesur. Founded in 2005, Telesur is
based in Caracas but broadcasts internationally. Its mission is to compete
with “imperialist” news sources such as CNN and provide a “Latin American”
and “south-oriented” perspective. Telesur offers a free-to-air signal,
which means that it can be picked up by anyone with the appropriate
equipment. According to the Venezuelan government, the channel is interested
in acquiring a mass audience, not profits. Telesur, whose annual
operating budget is estimated to be in the range of US$10 to 15 million,
claimed to have 7.7 million “subscribers” worldwide in 2014.
Like Chávez’s other foreign-policy initiatives, Telesur has a mixed
record. On the one hand, Telesur has secured international partners who
have helped to fund the enterprise, including Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba,
Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. In addition, Telesur has informationsharing
agreements with numerous organizations including Al-Jazeera,
the BBC, Russia’s RT, Iran’s IRIB, and China’s CCTV, among others.
Initially launched solely as a Spanish-language channel, it began broadcasting
in Portuguese in 2008 and in English in 2014.
On the other hand, Telesur’s actual viewership is probably low. Venezuela’s
information minister recently admitted that he does not know
how many people are actually watching the channel, claiming that Telesur
lacks the resources to collect data on viewership.21
The private firm AGB
Nielsen, which does collect viewership data in Venezuela, reports that between
2008 and 2012 Telesur had an average share of 0.48 percent, making
it one of the least-viewed channels in the country (by comparison, Venevisión’s
share ranged from 23 to 36 percent).22
Although there are no data on
Telesur’s international viewership, we can use Twitter to get an idea of the
channel’s popularity. Compared to its competition, Telesur is enormously
aggressive on Twitter, at least in terms of tweets posted per month (see
Table 2). At the same time, however, Telesur is significantly underperforming
in terms of Twitter followers: Its average increase in number of
followers per month pales in comparison to that of CNN en Espa~nol.
Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime’s efforts to disseminate
its worldview as widely as possible: The government pushes
hard for modest returns, but seems not to be too worried about this
poor investment-to-return ratio. In the battle against “imperialism,”
Venezuela is committed for the long haul.
Venezuela’s active foreign policy extends well beyond its neighborhood.
The regime has established fairly close ties with nondemocracies
across the globe, including China and Russia, as well as such pariah states
49Javier Corrales
as Iran, Syria, and Libya under Qadhafi. These extrahemispheric partnerships
have been motivated by general goals as well as specific bilateral
ones.23
In terms of the former, the regime has sought to forge opaque (and
therefore insulated from public scrutiny) economic and business relationships,
something that is easier done with nondemocracies, and to create
more diplomatic complications for the United States by teaming with
its adversaries. It is widely known that Venezuela’s regime under both
Chávez and Maduro has partnered with countries such as China, Russia,
Iran, and Syria on lucrative deals and economic investments.
The specifically bilateral goals are numerous. Venezuela hopes to find
a reliable alternative market for its oil in China, and to further increase
the more than $50 billion that China has already invested in the Venezuelan
economy. Meanwhile, the regime is a huge buyer of Russian weaponry;
Venezuela is estimated to have purchased about three-quarters of
the $14.5 billion that Russia earned from arms sales in Latin America
between 2001 and 2013.24
Finally, Venezuela had hoped that Iran would
join it in a subgroup within OPEC to counterbalance Saudi Arabia’s efforts
to keep oil prices down. The United States feared for some time
that the Venezuelan-Iranian partnership would lead to nuclear projects
in Venezuela as well as Iran-sponsored terrorism across Latin America,
though Western concern over Iranian influence in the region appears to
have subsided somewhat since 2012.
Today, with Venezuela facing a severe economic crisis that makes
it a less lucrative business partner and a less attractive role model, the
regime’s ability to project power globally is dwindling. So Maduro has
had to change tactics. Rather than trying to reshape the outside world,
his main goal now is to convince Venezuela’s global partners that, in
terms of their economic interests in Venezuela, a change in the status
quo is likely to be harmful to them. This is just another way of using
economic ties abroad to promote regime survival at home.
During sixteen years of chavismo, and especially since 2006, Venezuela’s
regime has steadily moved toward harsher authoritarian practices.
This trajectory was not preordained. Not all hybrid regimes move in this
direction. Many factors contributed to Venezuela’s rising authoritarianism:
high oil prices in 2003–2008 and 2010–2012, which gave the state
vast resources with which to coopt and repress opposition; the decline
in Western democracy-promotion initiatives; the growing influence of
Account Joined Twitter
Avg. No. of
Tweets/Month
Avg. Increase
in Followers/Month
CNN en Espa~nol April 2009 794 165,038
BBC Mundo November 2007 698 15,316
Telesur June 2009 8,570 16,236
NTN24 (Colombia) April 2010 2,602 47,254
Table 2—Telesur and Competitors on Twitter
Source: Tabulated by author based on www.twitter.com.
50 Journal of Democracy
new nondemocratic powers such as China and Russia; the intensification
of U.S. unilateralism between 2001 and 2008, which provoked Venezuela’s
nationalist impulses; the global shift toward greater tolerance
for statism after two decades of neoliberalism; and even the errors and
weaknesses of the Venezuelan opposition.
All these factors no doubt played a role. But in hybrid regimes, state
officials also have at their disposal the necessary instruments to steer
their countries toward deeper forms of authoritarianism. In the case of
Venezuela, such instruments have included the clever use of electoral
majorities at home and petrodollars abroad. Now that both of these are
scarcer, the regime is under unprecedented strain. It is facing newer
pressures from international critics (though still too few from Latin
America) and from a reenergized domestic opposition determined to reverse
the regime’s course. Economics and elections have left Maduro
cornered to a far greater degree than Chávez ever was. Will Maduro
yield to these pressures or will he counterattack? Based on his presidency
so far, Maduro appears to be confident that he has enough institutional
control at home and support abroad to stay the course. So it is
entirely possible that one of Latin America’s most politically restrictive
regimes could turn even more restrictive in the years to come.
NOTES
1. See “Grandes Objetivos Históricos y Objetivos Nacionales,” Programa de la Patria
2013–2019, http://blog.chavez.org.ve/programa-patria-venezuela-2013-2019/idependen-
cia-nacional/#.VPmcVuGLiJ8.
2. This figure for Venezuelan newspapers is based on Juvenal Mavares’s annual media
directory, Directorio de relaciones públicas y medios de comunicación social (Caracas:
J&M Asociados, 1998); see also Prensa Escrita’s list of Venezuelan newspapers at www.
prensaescrita.com/america/venezuela.php.
3. I am grateful to Franz von Bergen and Juan Gabriel Delgado for their research assistance.
In order to determine if a private newspaper was independent, we checked whether former
staff reporters or other news media reported cases of censored information in the coverage
of news that was favorable to the opposition. No doubt, some qualitative judgments were
employed. But leaving aside my count of nonindependent print media, the evidence is still
clear: The size of private independent print media has declined considerably under chavismo.
4. See Sujatha Fernandes, Who Can Stop The Drums? Urban Social Movements in
Chávez’s Venezuela (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010).
5. Philip Bennett and Moisés Naím. “21st
-Century Censorship,” Columbia Journalism
Review, 5 January 2015, http://moisesnaim.com/columns/21st-century-censorship.
6. “Unos cuarenta periódicos, afectados por la escasez de papel en Venezuela,” Reporteros
Sin Fronteras, 12 September 2014, http://es.rsf.org/venezuela-unos-cuarenta-
periodicos-afectados-12-09-2014,46951.html.
7. Javier Corrales, “Electoral Irregularities Under Chavismo: A Tally,” Americas Quarterly,
11 April 2013, www.americasquarterly.org/electoral-irregularities-under-chavismo-tally.
51Javier Corrales
8. Miriam Kornblith, “Latin America’s Authoritarian Drift: Chavismo After Chávez?”
Journal of Democracy 24 (July 2013): 47–61.
9. Edgar López, “En nueve a~nos el TSJ no ha dictado ni una sentencia contra el gobierno,”
El Nacional, 1 December 2014, www.el-nacional.com/politica/anos-TSJ-dictado-
sentencia-gobierno_0_529147208.html.
10. This section draws from Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold, Dragon in the Tropics:
The Legacy of Hugo Chávez, 2nd
ed. (Brookings Institution Press, forthcoming).
11. International Crisis Group, “Venezuela: Dangerous Inertia,” Latin America Briefing,
No. 31, 23 September 2014.
12. Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA),
“Venezuela 2014: Protestas y derechos humanos,” Informe, February–May 2014, www.
derechos.org.ve/pw/wp-content/uploads/Informe-final-protestas2.pdf; “Maduro supera a
Chávez en represión,” Hoy (Quito), 8 July 2014, www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/madu-
ro-supera-a-chavez-en-represion-609719.html.
13. Javier Corrales and Carlos A. Romero, U.S.-Venezuela Relations Since the 1990s:
Coping with Midlevel Security Threats (New York: Routledge, 2013).
14. Francisco J. Monaldi, “Oil and Politics: Venezuela Today,” paper presented at the
Latin American Studies Association Congress, Washington, D.C., 2013.
15. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Venezuela: Country Analysis Brief
Overview,” availiable at www.eia.gov/countries.
16. Javier Corrales, “Using Social Power to Balance Soft Power: Venezuela’s Foreign
Policy,” Washington Quarterly 32 (October 2009): 97–114.
17. Andres Schipani and John Paul Rathbone, “Oil Price Rout Forces Venezuela to
Rethink Petro-Diplomacy,” Financial Times, 14 January 2015.
18. For a more precise look at Venezuela’s petro-aid in its neighborhood, see the
table “Venezuela’s Petro-Aid: Subsidized Oil Shipments Within Latin America” at www.
journalofdemocracy.org/articles/supplemental-material.
19. See “Amenazan con expropiar a empresas espa~nolas,” El Nacional (Caracas), 16
February 2015, www.el-nacional.com/economia/Amenazan-expropiar-empresas-espano-
las_0_575342576.html.
20. Agustín E. Ferraro and Juan José Rastrollo, “¿Clientelismo político en El Salvador?
Estudio de caso de Alba Petróleos y sus empresas relacionadas,” Salamanca University,
www.slideshare.net/FUSADESORG/clientelismo-poltico-en-el-salvador-estudio-de-
caso-de-alba-petrleos-y-sus-empresas-relacionadas.
21. See “Telesur celebra cinco a~nos de vida ‘haciendo mejor periodismo que CNN,’”
Correo del Orinoco (Caracas), 1 August 2010, www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/comunica-
cion-cultura/telesur-celebra-cinco-anos-vida-haciendo-mejor-periodismo-que-cnn.
22. See AGB Nielsen Media Research, “Share por canal inter anual 2008 al 2012: Total
individuos,” www.agbnielsen.com.ve/libro2012/SHARE/TOTAL_INDIVIDUOS.html.
23. Corrales and Romero, U.S.-Venezuela Relations, 162.
24. Ilan Berman, “Russia Pivots Toward Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua,” Washington
Times, 26 March 2014.