An Alternative for Democracy in Latin America?1

Víctor M. Figueroa Venezuela’s Chávez: An Alternative for Democracy in Latin America?1

Introduction

Various studies have been published in recent years concerning the present state of “democracy” in Latin America. One of the most notable consisted of a large-scale survey conducted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Many observers were caught by surprise when they read the rather unexpected results about how the region’s population perceives their political institutions. Among other things, the UNDP survey indicated that:

• Only 43% of citizens support democracy. • Only 20% support political parties and their congresses. • There is consistently less than a 40% trust level among the population when asked separately about their nation’s judiciary system, national police forces, armed forces, and president. • Television has a less than a 50% level of credibility. • During the 1990–2002 period, only 62.7% of citizens with a right to vote actually cast ballots, but no more than 56.1% of the votes they cast were recognised as valid. Those countries where voting is not compulsory generally had lower rates of

1 This paper appeared earlier in Critical Sociology, Volume 32, No 1, 2006, pp. 187–211. 196 • Víctor M. Figueroa

participation: Colombia, 33%; Guatemala, 36.2%; Venezuela, 45.7%, although the notable exception was Nicaragua with 78%. • Electoral abstention appears to be growing. This is clearly the case in Mexico where abstention rates reached 42.3% in 1997 and 58.3% in 2003 (UNDP 2004).2

This data presents a convincing case that the political and ideological institutions of Latin American capitalism are at best providing for an anaemic social reproduction. They do not readily mobilise social energy and the population’s commitment to them is increasingly precarious. For that reason, these institutions display an ever weaker capacity for legitimating state power. Indeed, they continue to contribute to the de-legitimation of established authority regimes. How can this situation be explained? A very popular response circulating around the region is that we are living out a “political crisis.” While this seems to square with reality, it does not constitute an adequate answer. The present paper portends to offer an alternative response. First, some brief reﬂections will be offered on the various forms of democracy that exist under contemporary capitalism. These considerations will then be extended to Latin America with a focus on the contradictions of neoliberal democracy. The discussion will then turn to the exceptional case of Bolivarian democracy that has been established in Venezuela.

Two Forms of Democracy Under Contemporary Capitalism

By politics, we refer to the praxis which regulates social conﬂict based on the internal social class divisions of countries as well as the relations among states in the global order. Politics unfold around speciﬁc relations of domination and a world without politics can only be imagined as a world free of domination. In this, states constitute the main political agent. The particular form of domination and historical circumstances surrounding it actively condition the organisation and tasks of every state. This notion is valid for each particular type of state. During the six last decades of capitalism, we have witnessed two main forms of political regulation. On the one hand, there has been authoritarian-

2 The English version of this report (UNDP 2004) can be found at: http://democ racia.undp.org/Informe/Default.asp?Menu=15&Idioma=2