Cracked Venezuelan flag with storm clouds

Venezuela's Political Crisis: How Polarization Erodes Democracy

Avery Sinclair in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 3 min read.

"A deep dive into the factors driving Venezuela's democratic decline, from participatory democracy to social divides."

Venezuela, once a beacon of democratic promise in Latin America, now grapples with a severe political and economic crisis. Understanding how it got here requires a close examination of the concept of political polarization. This isn't just about differing opinions; it's about how deeply divided societies can undermine the very foundations of democracy.

Political polarization, as seen in Venezuela, occurs when societies split into opposing groups with conflicting values, principles, and ideologies. This division makes rational debate and compromise nearly impossible. When these differences intensify to the point where opposing groups view each other as enemies, the potential for violence and authoritarianism rises dramatically.

This article explores how political polarization took root in Venezuela, specifically during the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. By examining the interplay of participatory democracy, social class, and competing political narratives, we can better understand the conditions that led to the erosion of democracy in this South American nation.

The Roots of Polarization: Competing Visions of Democracy

Cracked Venezuelan flag with storm clouds

The seeds of Venezuela's polarization were sown with the introduction of participatory democracy into the country's constitution. While seemingly inclusive, this concept created a rift between competing visions of democracy: representative versus participatory. Those aligned with the traditional elite and middle class often favored a liberal-representative model, emphasizing individual rights and established institutions. Conversely, supporters of Chávez, largely from the marginalized popular sectors, championed participatory democracy, prioritizing collective social and economic rights.

This fundamental disagreement over the very definition of democracy fueled political antagonism. Instead of working together, these two groups saw each other as fundamentally opposed. The inclusion of both representative and participatory models in the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution, intended to deepen democracy, ironically became a source of division. The constitution defined democracy as “participatory and protagonist,” as well as “representative," which created ambiguity.

Here are the Key Factors that Drove Polarization:

Competing Definitions: The core problem began from a political-ideological clash around the concepts of democracy itself – participatory versus representative.
Rights Prioritization: The visions also privileged distinctly different rights, setting individual civil and political rights against collective social and economic rights.
Exclusion: The previous dominant groups (middle and upper classes) became the political opposition, further exacerbating the divide.

The situation was exacerbated by the singular definition of the “sovereign.” The constitution defined the government's source of power as the unitary "people" (el pueblo), which contrasted with the liberal democratic concept of pluralism. This view implied a homogenous whole, rather than the accommodation of competing individual interests. The ambiguity made the perfect condition for increased potential for confrontation and polarization.

Navigating Beyond Polarization: A Path Forward

Venezuela's experience offers critical lessons for other societies grappling with deep divisions. To prevent democracy from eroding, it's essential to reduce poverty and social inequality, foster ideological compatibility, and design inclusive public policies. A clear constitutional framework reflecting plurality is also crucial, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their differences, feel represented and included. Without these safeguards, the promise of participatory democracy can turn into a path toward authoritarianism.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1177/0002716218817733, Alternate LINK

Title: Polarization, Participatory Democracy, And Democratic Erosion In Venezuela’S Twenty-First Century Socialism

Subject: General Social Sciences

Journal: The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Publisher: SAGE Publications

Authors: María Pilar García-Guadilla, Ana Mallen

Published: 2018-12-20

Everything You Need To Know

How did the introduction of participatory democracy contribute to political polarization?

In Venezuela, political polarization was intensified by the introduction of participatory democracy alongside the existing representative model within the constitution. This created a fundamental disagreement over what democracy meant, with some favoring individual rights and institutions (representative democracy) and others prioritizing collective social and economic rights (participatory democracy). The constitution's definition of democracy as both “participatory and protagonist,” as well as “representative” added to this ambiguity.

How did differing views on rights contribute to the political divide?

The prioritization of distinctly different rights contributed to Venezuela's political polarization. Supporters of representative democracy often emphasized individual civil and political rights, while those favoring participatory democracy prioritized collective social and economic rights. This divergence created a clash where one group's rights were seen as potentially undermining the other's, deepening the societal divide.

How did the constitutional definition of 'el pueblo' influence political polarization?

The concept of "el pueblo" as the unitary source of power, as defined in the constitution, exacerbated polarization by implying a homogenous whole rather than accommodating competing individual interests. This clashed with the liberal democratic concept of pluralism, where diverse voices and interests are recognized and balanced. This singular view increased the potential for confrontation, as it marginalized those who didn't fit within the defined 'people'. The constitution's ambiguous wording paved the way for increased potential for confrontation and polarization.

Based on Venezuela's experience, what steps can other societies take to prevent political polarization from undermining democracy?

To prevent political polarization from eroding democracy, societies need to address social inequality, foster ideological compatibility, and design inclusive public policies. A clear constitutional framework is crucial to reflect plurality, ensuring all citizens feel represented. Venezuela's experience teaches that without these safeguards, participatory democracy can inadvertently turn into a path toward authoritarianism, highlighting the need for careful balance and inclusive governance.

What were the key factors that led to the erosion of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism?

The decline was rooted in a shift from a liberal-representative democracy model toward participatory democracy. Those aligned with the traditional elite favored a liberal-representative model. Conversely, supporters of Chávez, largely from the marginalized popular sectors, championed participatory democracy. The inclusion of both models created ambiguity in the constitution, and that ambiguity was capitalized to create more opportunity for increased potential for confrontation and polarization.