Populism in Venezuela: The role of the opposition

The level of political and social polarization that accompanies populist politics points to an active role for those that fall into the category of the "other" as much as those that are considered the "pure people." Throughout the last 15 years, two main political poles have consolidated in Venezuela, those in favor of the late President Hugo Chavez or Chavistas and those in opposition. Despite their divergent propositions and consequent deep social polarization, the two camps share similarities and in a way each has reinforced the existence of the other through its discursive practices. Moreover, this emergent populist discourse has been greatly mediated by a set of political institutions, redefining the political space in Venezuela. Through process tracing, this chapter investigates the role of the opposition in the consolidation of a populist discourse in Venezuela. Preliminary conclusions suggest that a radical and polarizing response from the opposition served to further radicalize and reinforce the Chavistas' populist discourse. In time, this transformed the political space from one guided by liberal democratic principles to one run by a populist logic. This chapter investigates the role of the opposition in the consolidation of a populist discourse in Venezuela. It discusses the potential harms for liberal democracy that come from the style and timing of reactions to populist politics. The analysis of the case opens the way for future research into how responses to populism might play a role in exacerbating political and social polarization, and creating a toxic political environment that is detrimental to democracy. By analyzing both the evolution of discourse and the actions of the opposition during Hugo Chavez's tenure, the chapter provides a comprehensive picture of how the response of the "other" played an important role in shaping the emergence and consolidation of populism in Venezuela. It examines the unfolding of events in Venezuela between 1999 and 2012, broken into a two-stage periodization built upon existing literature about the emergence and evolution of political opposition in the country.