La primera década del gobierno de Hugo Chávez: Logros y desaciertos

Cuadernos del CENDES 05/2010; 27(74):27-50.


Abstract A balance sheet of the 10 years of chavismo in power refutes both the opposition's demonization of it and its rosy depiction in the official media. The Venezuelan experience scores high on the social front and shows weakness with regard to the stimulation of production of consumer goods. While it has incorporated massive numbers of the formerly marginalized into the decision-making process, diversified technological and commercial ties, and asserted greater national control in the economic sphere, it has failed to substantially boost production in spite of a windfall in oil revenue and has moved very slowly toward institutionalization. Judged by liberal standards, Venezuelan democracy is deficient on a number of counts, but in terms of the standards associated with radical democracy it fares much better.

7 Reads
  • Source
    • "However, such a concentration on numbers and dependence on oil, and negative aspects of Isabella Hermann September 2014 6 populism would ignore advances like " inclusion and participation " (Ellner 2010: 29) and positive benefits for the people " not only in terms of material gains, but in terms of the personal sense of empowerment that results from involvement in community-based work " (Fernandes 2008: 42). And even more, the merit of Chávez would also be that he opened up a powerful discourse by having put the issues of poverty and inequality and the necessity to find measures to confront and surpass them not only in Venezuela but in Latin America as a whole on the political agenda (Ellner 2010: 29; Estrada Álvarez 2012: 136). But how do the media respond to the Bolivarian Revolution, the supposed successes and points of critique? "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The so called “Bolivarian Revolution” and the concept of “socialism of the 21st century” initiated by Hugo Chávez in Venezuela have not only polarized Venezuelan society tremendously, but also the entire hemisphere and even beyond. The question of whether the policies under the label of the Bolivarian Revolution ‐ including a number of controversial social programs ‐ can in fact be evaluated positively or negatively according to certain standards appears to be a highly ideological one. This paper focuses on who frames and constructs the Bolivarian Revolution as good or bad and how this is done. It examines different media discourses in Latin America, the US and Europe and finds that media which position themselves as rather conservative delegitimize the Bolivarian Revolution from the start, while media which position themselves as rather liberal establish it as legitimate.

Similar Publications


7 Reads
Available from