Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:50:58.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radical Change at the Ballot Box: Causes and Consequences of Electoral Behavior in Venezuela's 2000 Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Molina V. José E.  and
Pérez B. Carmen
Molina V. José E.
Affiliation:
Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público, Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela, University of Michigan
Pérez B. Carmen
Affiliation:
Universidad del Zulia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims to explain the victory of Hugo Chávez and his party in the 2000 Venezuelan elections, to analyze the factors that made this victory possible, and to examine the consequences for future developments in the Venezuelan political system. The decay of traditional party loyalties without the emergence of new parties deeply rooted in society (dealignment without realignment); underdevelopment; and an institutional setting dominated by a president elected by a plurality electoral system have opened the door to personality-centered politics and weak parties, which are the main features of the current political situation. Compared to the 1993 and 1998 elections, the 2000 elections once again confirm an increase in personality politics and the decay of parties as instruments for articulating interests, representation, and governance. As a consequence, this article argues, instability is likely to remain a feature of Venezuela's party system for some time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , Spring 2004 , pp. 103 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, Angel. 1996. La crisis de hegemonía de los partidos políticos venezolanos. In El sistema político venezolano. Crisis y transformaciones, ed. Alvarez, . Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. 31–154.Google Scholar
Baloyra, Enrique, and John, Martz. 1979. Political Attitudes in Venezuela: Societal Cleavages and Political Opinion. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Blais, André, and Agnieszka, Dobrzynska. 1998. Turnout in Electoral Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 33: 239–61.Google Scholar
Canache, Damarys. 2002a. Venezuela: Public Opinion and Protest in a Fragile Democracy. Coral Gables: North-South Center Press.Google Scholar
Canache, . 2002b. From Bullets to Ballots: the Emergence of Popular Support for Hugo Chávez. Latin American Politics and Society 44, 1 (Spring): 69–90.Google Scholar
Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE). 1998. Resultados electorados 1998. CD-Rom. Caracas: CNE.Google Scholar
Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE). 2000. Elecciones 30 de julio de 2000. Votos diputados listas a Asamblea Nacional Venezuela. http:www.cne.gov.veestadisticase018.pdf.Google Scholar
Consejo Nacional Electoral-INDRA. 2000. República Bolivariana de Venezuela Elecciones 2000. CD-ROM (Bulletin of August 11, 2000). Caracas: CNE.Google Scholar
Consultores 21. 2000. National survey of 1,500 respondents carried out June 26-July 7.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 2001. Political Darwinism in Latin America's Lost Decade. In Political Parties and Democracy, ed. Larry, Diamond and Richard, Gunther. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 173–205.Google Scholar
Crewe, Ivor. 1981. Electoral Participation. In Democracy at the Polls, ed. David, Butler, Howard, Penniman, and Austin, Ranney. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 216–43.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell. 2000. The Decline of Party Identification. In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Dalton, and Martin, Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 19–37.Google Scholar
Dalton, . 2002. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. 3rd ed. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell, and Martin, Wattenberg. 1993. The Not So Simple Act of Voting. In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Ada, Finifter. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. 193–218.Google Scholar
Dix, Robert H. 1984. Incumbency and Electoral Turnover in Latin America. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 26, 4 (November): 435–48.Google Scholar
Dix, . 1989. Cleavage Structures and Party Systems in Latin America. Comparative Politics 22: 23–37.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark. 2002. The Dynamics of Electoral Participation. In Le, Duc et al. 2002. 148–68.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, Manuel. 1998. Consolidación, crisis y cambio del sistema venezolano de partidos. Politeia 21: 63–104.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Miriam. 1998. Venezuela en los 90. Las crisis de la democracia. Caracas: Ediciones IESA.Google Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Rein, Taagepera. 1979. Effective Number of Parties: a Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Duc, Lawrence, Richard, Niemi, and Pippa, Norris, eds. 2002. Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 148–68.Google Scholar
Levine, Daniel. 1973. Conflict and Political Cleavage in Venezuela. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, . 1998. Beyond the Exhaustion of the Model: Survival and Transformation of Democracy in Venezuela. In Reinventing Legitimacy: Democracy and Political Change in Venezuela, ed. Damarys, Canache and Michael, Kulischeck. Westport: Greenwood Press. 187–214.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Martin, Paldam. 2000. Economic Voting: an Introduction. Electoral Studies 19 (June-September): 113–21.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 2000. Turnout. In International Encyclopedia of Elections, ed. Richard, Rose. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 314–22.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein, Rokkan. 1967. Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, ed. Lipset, and Rokkan, . New York: Free Press. 1–64.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Matthhew, Shugart. 1997. Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System. In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. Scott, Mainwaring and Matthew, Shugart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 394–440.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy, Scully. 1995. Introduction. In Building Democratic Institutions, ed. Mainwaring, and Scully, . Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1–34.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2002. Comparing Party Systems. In Le, Duc et al. 2002. 89–107.Google Scholar
Manza, Jeff, and Clem, Brooks. 1999. Social Cleavages and Political Change: Voter Alignments and U.S. Party Coalitions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
March, James, and Johan, Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren, and Merrill Shanks, J.. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, William, and Richard, Niemi. 2002. Voting: Choice, Conditioning, and Constraint. In Le, Duc et al. 2002. 169–88.Google Scholar
Molina, José. 1991. El sistema electoral venezolano y sus consecuencias políticas. Valencia, Venezuela: Vadell Hermanos/Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.Google Scholar
Molina, . 2001. The Electoral Effect of Underdevelopment: Government Turnover and Its Causes in Latin American, Caribbean, and Industrialized Countries. Electoral Studies 20, 3: 427–46.Google Scholar
Molina, José, and Carmen, Pérez. 1995. Participación y abstención electoral. In El proceso electoral de 1993, ed. CENDES. Caracas: CENDES. 29–42.Google Scholar
Molina, . 1998. Evolution of the Party System in Venezuela, 1946–1993. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 40, 2 (Summer): 1–26.Google Scholar
El Nacional (Caracas). 2000. Ventaja de Chávez sobre Arias es de 28 puntos. April 4: D-1.Google Scholar
El Nacional (Caracas). 2002. Sesenta y seis por ciento de los venezolanos no quiere regresar al pasado. Investigación ordenada por la Universidad de Harvard. October 26: D7.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard, and Herbert, Weisberg. 2001. Introduction. In Controversies in Voting Behavior, 4th ed., ed. Niemi, and Weisberg, . Washington, DC: CQ Press. 1–21.Google Scholar
Njaim, Humberto. 1999. La campaña electoral venezolana de 1998 como proceso de comunicación. In Campañas electorales y medios de comunicación en América Latina, vol. 2, ed. Frank, Priess and Fernando, Tuesta. Buenos Aires: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo Latinoamericano. 629–710.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Mogens. 1983. Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility in European Party Systems, 1948–1977: Explorations in Explanations. In Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change, ed. Hans, Daalder and Peter, Mair. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 29–66.Google Scholar
Pereira, Valia. 1998. La personalización de la política y estabilidad democrática en América Latina. Boletín Electoral Latinoamericano 18 (July–December): 321–53.Google Scholar
Pereira, . 2001a. Cambio político radical y actitud hacia la democracia en Venezuela. In Venezuela en transición: elecciones y democracia 1998–2000, ed. José, Vicente Carrasquero, Thais, Maingón, and Friedrich, Welsch. Caracas: REDPOL-CDB. 52–68.Google Scholar
Pereira, . 2001b. Movimiento V República. In Partidos políticos de América Latina. Países andinos, ed. Manuel, Alcántara and Flavia, Freidenberg. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 585–99.Google Scholar
Pérez, Carmen. 2000. Cambios en la participación electoral venezolana: 1998–2000. Cuestiones Políticas 25 (July-December): 11–26.Google Scholar
Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal. 2001. Neoinstitutional Accounts of Voter Turnout: Moving beyond Industrial Democracies. Electoral Studies 20: 281–97.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 1986. American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review 80 (March): 17–44.Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen. 1991. The Political Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s. American Political Science Review 85 (September): 777–800.Google Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth, and Eric, Wibbels. 1999. Party Systems and Electoral Volatility in Latin America: a Test of Economic, Institutional, and Structural Explanations. American Political Science Review 93: 575–90.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Mishler, W.. 1998. Negative and Positive Party Identification in Post-Communist Countries. Electoral Studies 18: 305–22.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and John, Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
El Universal (Caracas). 1999. Cincuenta y tres por ciento de los congresistas apoya reforma constitucional. Survey conducted among congressional representatives, published in three installments. January 18–20.Google Scholar
El Universal (Caracas). 2000. La cuarta parte de la Asamblea piensa en moderar a Chávez. August 14.Google Scholar
El Universal (Caracas). 2002. Chávez se debilita por la base. Datanalisis survey. November 15: A1.Google Scholar
Vaivads, Henry. 1999. La teoría de realineamiento partidista. Una aproximación explicativa para el caso venezolano. Cuestiones Políticas 22: 133–46.Google Scholar
Valery Gil, Yolanda, and Roselena Ramírez, Prado. 2001. Megafracaso 2000. La conspiración de los sordos. Caracas: Fundación Andrés Mata.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Norman, Nie, and Jae-on, Kim. 1978. Participation and Political Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar