Who Mobilizes? Participatory Democracy in Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution Kirk A. Hawkins ABSTRACT This article assesses popular mobilization under the Chávez gov- ernment’s participatory initiatives in Venezuela using data from the AmericasBarometer survey of 2007. This is the first study of the so- called Bolivarian initiatives using nationally representative, individ- ual-level data. The results provide a mixed assessment. Most of the government’s programs invite participation from less active seg- ments of society, such as women, the poor, and the less educated, and participation in some programs is quite high. However, much of this participation clusters within a narrow group of activists, and a disproportionate number of participants are Chávez supporters. This partisan bias probably reflects self-screening by Venezuelans who accept Chávez’s radical populist discourse and leftist ideology, rather than vote buying or other forms of open conditionality. Thus, the Venezuelan case suggests some optimism for proponents of par- ticipatory democracy, but also the need to be more attuned to its practical political limits. uring the past decade, leftist governments with participatory dem- Docratic agendas have come to power in many Latin American coun- tries, implementing institutional reforms at the local and, increasingly, the national level. This trend has generated a scholarly literature assess- ing the nature of participation in these initiatives; that is, whether they embody effective attempts at participatory forms of democracy that mobilize and empower inactive segments of society (Goldfrank 2007; Wampler 2007a). This article advances this discussion by studying popular mobiliza- tion under the government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, referred to here as the Bolivarian Revolution or Chavismo. Under Chávez’s ener- getic efforts, and aided by an enormous surge in oil revenues, Venezuela’s government has implemented an incredible variety of pro- grams designed to create what it calls a “participatory and protagonistic democracy” (República Bolivariana de Venezuela 2001). While Chav- ismo clearly has attributes that make it sui generis, such as the charis- matic persona of Chávez, its struggle to implement participatory democ- racy is the most ambitious nationwide effort to date, and it helps make the movement an important reference point for scholars and activists. © 2010 University of Miami 32 LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 52: 3 This article uses a relatively new source of data, the Americas Barometer 2006–7, a nationwide survey of 1,500 respondents conducted in August and September 2007 and sponsored by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) at Vanderbilt University. This is the first survey in the series to be conducted in Venezuela, and it includes sev- eral sets of questions on popular participation in the erstwhile Bolivar- ian Circles; newer Bolivarian initiatives, such as the Communal Coun- cils; and the government’s broad set of social development programs, known as the missions. It also includes a host of standard questions that allow scholars to gauge the socioeconomic, demographic, and partisan profiles of respondents. Thus, the survey offers a unique opportunity to gauge participatory democracy at the individual level using nationally representative data. The results of the AmericasBarometer provide a mixed assessment of the Bolivarian initiatives’ ability to incorporate and mobilize citizens. Most of the programs invite participation from less active segments of society, particularly women, the poor, and the less educated; participa- tion in the Communal Councils and a few other programs is quite high. These are remarkable accomplishments that compare well with other efforts in the region. However, much of this participation clusters within a narrow group of activists, and a disproportionate number of partici- pants are Chávez supporters, suggesting that these programs have a par- tisan bias.1 While less than ideal, these results do not indicate the use of vote buying or other kinds of open conditionality, as some critics have suggested (Corrales and Penfold 2007). Instead, they suggest that Venezuelans tend to self-select into government programs for ideologi- cal reasons, particularly an affinity for the radical populist discourse and leftism of Chávez and his key allies. It is also likely that some of these programs generate real benefits that increase support from voters. Thus, the Venezuelan case suggests some optimism for proponents of partici- patory democracy, but also the need to be more attuned to its practical, political limits. PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY While there are multiple perspectives on the appropriate type and level of participation in democracy (see Pateman 1970; Barber 1984; Santos 2005), in this article, the term participatory democracy refers to the use of mass participation in political decisionmaking to complement or (in the most radical versions) replace the traditional institutions of elections and lobbying associated with representative democracy. As the Progres- sive era in the United States reminds us, participatory democracy is not a new concept. However, the emphasis on participatory democracy has become an important component of leftist platforms over the past few HAWKINS: VENEZUELA’S DEMOCRACY 33 decades, especially in Latin America (Roberts 1998; Avritzer 2002; Held 2006, chap. 7).2 This emphasis constitutes an important shift from tradi- tional, Leninist approaches that treated democratic institutions as dan- gerous distractions from revolutionary goals; it celebrates democracy, and especially participatory democracy, as ends in and of themselves. The participatory democratic emphasis of the New Left has acquired added relevance with the recent wave of leftist governments in Latin America. Starting especially with their election victories in local areas, where they subsequently attempted many of these radical reforms (Chávez and Goldfrank 2004), leftist parties and movements have imple- mented a variety of participatory reforms across the region. The use of participatory budgeting in Brazil has received most of the attention, but the agenda includes other reforms, such the integration of new civil society organizations into traditional forms of corporatist policymaking and the implementation of direct primaries and more radical forms of consensual decisionmaking in political parties. Many of these reforms are now being endorsed by parties of the center and right, as well as multilateral aid agencies, such as the World Bank, which see them in more pragmatic terms as a means for providing better governance (see Shah 2007). A growing number of scholarly works attempt to gauge the success of these reforms. Some studies focus on the policy outcomes of these initiatives, particularly their consequences for economic welfare and the quality of democratic governance. The results so far are mixed, show- ing that participatory reforms are implemented with much greater con- sistency and success at the local level than they are at the national level (Goldfrank 2008). In the emblematic case of participatory budgeting in Brazil, reforms have been found to have a host of positive conse- quences for the poor, including a reduction in clientelism (Santos 1998; Abers 2000; Serageldin et al. 2003; Navarro 2004; Wampler and Avritzer 2004; for a review of this literature, see Goldfrank 2007). However, most scholars who assess these initiatives tend to focus on the level and quality of political participation. The concern is to iden- tify whether significant numbers of previously excluded citizens are being mobilized and whether the programs that mobilize them repre- sent real instances of participatory democracy with meaningful budgets, autonomy, and popular involvement. The quantity and quality of par- ticipation are important for practical reasons, in that the incorporation of traditionally disenfranchised sectors, such as the poor, is presumably the key to making government policy more representative and just, and especially to eliminating the legacies of clientelism that typically char- acterize politics in the developing world. Yet participation is also impor- tant for its own sake, as a means of empowering citizens and giving them control over their own lives. 34 LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 52: 3 An important weakness of current studies of participatory demo- cratic initiatives is the lack of representative national samples of indi- vidual-level data. Often this is an artifact of the policy initiatives them- selves, which were conducted only in select municipalities and states. On this smaller scale, most analyses are case studies that focus on movement participants or aggregate aspects of the participatory initia- tive (budget, results, decisionmaking procedures, etc.), not the larger population, although small surveys of participants are sometimes avail- able (see Wampler 2007a, b; Goldfrank 2008). Hence, we have some idea of how many participate and what their participation means, but we are not always certain about who these people are or how they com- pare with the rest of the population. The study of participatory budgeting in Brazil exemplifies this lack of representative, individual-level data. Most of these analyses use aggregate municipal-level data. They find that participation tends to be concentrated among Brazilians who already have experience as activists (Nylen 2002); that it seems to increase when programs receive effective decisionmaking power