National Identity and Political Violence: The Case of Venezuela

Venezuela is not a country that is typically associated with political violence. The upheavals encountered during the development process in other Latin American countries largely bypassed Venezuela. The violence associated with the emergence of mass party politics in the 1920s and 1930s in countries such as Mexico and Argentina had only a muted echo in Venezuela, which was also spared the bloodshed of the authoritarian military government experience in the 1960s and 1970s. The most striking factor in accounting for the comparatively violence-free nature of Venezuela’s political evolution was the enduring nature of oligarchic government in the country. Venezuela was late in democratizing and it was not until 1958 that a functioning democratic system was established. The persistence of caudillismo, a legacy of the profound instability of the post-Independence period, and its capacity for repression served to delimit demands for political and economic reform. Consequently, Venezuela did not experience the same system pressures stemming from mass-based populist mobilization in the first half of the twentieth century. When regime change did come in 1958, the newly democratic system was supported by the armed forces and it enjoyed wide popular legitimacy. As a result, civilian administration prevailed during the regional political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s and potential anti-system actors were absorbed into the political mainstream.