Within the framework of massive demonstrations, deaths and mutual accusations, the social divide is increasingly exposed in Venezuela.
What began in February as a series of university protests to free detained students, to disarm parastatal groups and calls for more pluralism in the media, turned into a movement with a chain of protests against and in favor of President Nicolas Maduro’s government. Some of the protests being peaceful and others more violent.
Clashes between opposing political forces resulted in the killing of 40 people, more than 416 injured and 1,854 detained. While the Venezuelan government accuses the opposition for being involved in destabilizing the country, the opposition forces argue that the country is suffering a wave of repression.
How did Venezuela get into this spiral of violence and social fragmentation?
The most immediate answer lies upon structural changes that the leftist, social Bolivarian movement generated in its beginnings.
Hugo Chavez’ electoral triumph in 1998 established a major divide in Venezuelan politics. Coming from a military and populist background, Chavez got the backing of millions of Venezuelans who felt excluded from both existing political parties: the Political Electoral Independent Organization Committee (COPEI in Spanish) and Democratic Action Party.
High levels of poverty and marginalization, in addition to the fact that Venezuela is a major producer of petroleum, ignited a Venezuelan top-down and anti-imperialist political movement with great appeal to the masses.
Helped by a global hike in oil prices, the government of Chavez funded the construction of affordable housing, schools and hospital buildings in the poorer neighborhoods of the country. At the same time, his military education and criticism of progressive ideas brought about a greater control of the media and interfering with judicial independence.
This is how the class polarization came about in Venezuela. While poor people love and venerate Chavez, the upper class consider him a dictator—despite the fact that he fairly won elections on several consecutive occasions. Chavez´ death in March 2013 triggered divisions both in the ruling party and the opposition.
There are two positions on the Venezuelan government—a left wing, which came into power with Nicolas Maduro, a Marxist bus driver who took over Chavez’ presidency; and a nationalist military wing, with Diosdado Cabello, president of the Parliament.
On the anti-Chavez side, the opposition leader used to be Henrique Capriles, who lost the presidential elections with Maduro on April 14, 2013. But Leopoldo Lopez was another person to stand out with the recent marches. The Chavez movement accuses him of links with the United States, resulting in his imprisonment by the government. This has raised questions in as well as outside of Maduro’s country.
While Capriles emphasizes the necessity to articulate institutions that predate Chavez through some of his social achievements, Lopez represents the hardest wing of Chavez opponents, because they view it as a “dictatorial government.”
Why are these demonstrations suddenly exploding now and not before?
Chavez’s death was key not only for his followers, also for an opposition that to a great extent supported the 2002 coup. However, the economic agent is another point to consider in this process.
While the Chavez government used oil revenues to invest in social programs, Venezuela did not change the economic model based in the mono-export of the resource. Therefore, despite the preaching of nationalism and sovereignty, the country still needs to import food.
That may be why the Chavez government allied with countries like Argentina and Brazil. A lack of economic diversification, corporate speculation and an stagnant production derived in a shortage of commodities such as milk or toilet paper. Last November, according to the Central Bank of Venezuela, the country reached a rate of 21.2 percent shortage.
In this context, the protests against and in favor of Maduro, show a divided country between those who support the government and those who want to see it out.
The opposition denounces torture to the detained protesters during the past weeks, while the pro-Chavez lawyer, Herman Escarra, calls for an “anti-terrorism law” to deal with the opposition demonstrations in a much faster and effective way.
Meanwhile, Maduro accuses the opposition of applying “a certain form of a coup d’état, generating a spiral of chaos to justify a foreign military intervention.”
These demonstrations may bring about new directions in the advancement of the Bolivarian movement. What is unknown is whether the current government could be in power without changes or if the protests will force Maduro to negotiate with the opposition, as he promised on April 7 to the Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR in Spanish).