- Dr. Nahem Reyes, Venezuelan Researcher
Venezuela is basically known for its oil and Miss Universe. However, since the middle of the last decade, a major question has arisen: Why and how did Venezuela’s image shift from being so positive to becoming so negative? While it is true that Venezuela – more specifically an area located in the south of the country called the “Orinoco Belt” – is still by far the country with the largest proven oil reserves on planet Earth, that is, more than 300 billion barrels. Despite this, the country, far from developing its economy, contrary and unfortunately the Venezuelan population experiences 80% of critical poverty and since 2016 the country has experienced a massive migration with figures that reach 8 million.
The starting point of such a colossal crisis, that is, unprecedented in the Americas and a migratory process superior to that of Syria and the entire Arab Spring at the beginning of the last decade, has its origin for some reductionists by trade, in a crisis international politics, that is, the Washington – Caracas confrontation with the imposition of economic sanctions or trade blockades since the end of President Obama’s second term and deepened during the government of Republican President Donald Trump.
However, the source of such colossal and historic destruction—both of the national economy and society—can be traced back to the government of the well-known President Hugo Chávez, who governed Venezuela in times of full oil boom, a kind of oil boom 2.0, when at the beginning of the 20th century when Venezuelan crude oil was priced at over $100 per barrel. This raises the question: How did a leader in the midst of an economic boom lay the groundwork for such a downfall?
Obviously, this was the product of a tragic chain of events, but all of them associated with political-ideological factors and which we will detail below. Hugo Chávez won the December 1998 elections in a context where the two-party representative democracy was exhausted by corruption, rising poverty, a deficit in public services, increasing living costs, and widespread insecurity and violence. In short, a collective rejection of the system, a situation that the former military coup leader capitalized on for his victory at the polls with his diffuse “constituent” proposal.
Once in power, he advanced his campaign promise of a ‘constituent’ assembly, styled after the French model, which later led to a new Constitution approved by a large majority. The new Constitution of 1999 not only brought a change in the name of the country, which went from “Republic of Venezuela” to “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”, but it also came with a very broad load of faculties and powers for the Executive Branch. Amen, everything allowed President Chávez to generate a system of nominally separate and independent Public Powers, but in the end, they were all derived from the direct and personal will of Hugo Chávez and to which was added the effort to transform Venezuela into a Cuban-style socialist society.
These two powerful elements intrinsically associated, that is, on the one hand the breakdown of the liberal democratic model in the strict sense and on the other hand, the gradual but systematic implementation of the socialist model, which implied, a sine qua non, the liquidation of the private property as well as the conditions of the capitalist system. Soon, the entire country was subordinated to the will of the President of the Republic and his political party, first the “V Republic Movement” and later the “United Socialist Party of Venezuela” (PSUV), until today.
The business community, the traditional political sectors, the most prestigious universities in the country and intellectuals, rejected such an arbitrary and unconstitutional imposition of socialism, which unleashed an open and constant clash between these sectors and the national government that still had great popular support.
With the second term of Hugo Chávez, in 2008 the president deepened his socialist model, the word “expropriation” became commonplace in the country’s newspapers, Chávez’s administration became increasingly authoritarian, leading to the expulsion of private companies, which either ceased operations or were expropriated.
Then, the second wave of expropriations fell on large Venezuelan industries, which ended simply due to the reduction of production in multiple sectors simultaneously, which inevitably led to hyper-inflation and generalized shortages. The government was quick to blame Yankee imperialism and its local partners.
Already in the midst of this economic crisis, Chávez died in 2013, being succeeded by his dolphin, Nicolás Maduro, whose first term was characterized by the worsening of the crisis and greater repression. Maduro’s situation reached a critical point after the recent elections on July 28, 2024, when the National Electoral Council proclaimed Nicolás Maduro as the winner with 51.2% of the vote, leaving opposition candidate Edmundo González with 44.2%. But the process has been highly questioned, few countries have recognized these results.
Finally, all indications are that Maduro will be sworn in without major challenges on January 10, 2025, but two big unknowns remain: Will Maduro’s government really manage to survive once he is sworn in on January 10? And for how much longer will Venezuela, with such wealth, remain disconnected from the world economy and its population plunged into poverty by this narco-praetorian-neo-communist model? Only the time will answer these questions.
[ The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance or editorial position of COGGS.]
