Populism in Latin America: Second Edition

6. The Heyday of Radical Populism in Venezuela and Its Reappearance

6 The heyday of Radical Populism in venezuela and its Reappearance Steve Ellner The story of populism in venezuela centers on one movement and to a certain extent on one man, Rómulo betancourt, the maximum leader of the party called Acción Democrática (Democratic Action—AD) for many decades. The party’s precursor organizations began among exiled students during the dictatorial regime of Juan vicente Gómez in the 1930s. At first heavily Marxist in orientation, they shifted their public stands after Gómez’s death in 1935 and deemphasized ideological formulations. nevertheless, many of betancourt’s followers expected that when AD eventually came into office, it would reveal the extent of its socialist leanings. yet by the time it finally did accede to power in 1945 by means of a coup d’etat, AD shared many of the prominent features of other postwar Latin American populist parties. following the coup, betancourt and AD swept into power in the country’s first direct, secret, and honest elections ever. These peak years of venezuelan populism have become known as the Trienio, a heroic period of far-reaching reforms and organizational inroads for workers, peasants, and students. before they completed their term, however, AD leaders were overthrown by the military in 1948. betancourt and his followers returned to power in 1958, and in subsequent years venezuela enjoyed a long succession of elected governments. AD’s principal rival, the Christian Democratic Party or Comité de organización Política Electoral independiente (CoPEi), managed to win several presidential elections , thus establishing a periodic alternation between the two parties. Political observers generally admired venezuela as one of the most democratic nations Radical Populism in venezuela / 133 in the region in the 1970s and 1980s. Thus the legacy of populism was generally seen as positive,1 but more recently it has come under heavy attack. some venezuelan historians have compared AD and its predecessor parties with the Peruvian Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (American Popular Democratic Alliance—APRA) during the heyday of Latin American populism in the 1930s and 1940s.2 nevertheless, there is little evidence of direct contact between the two movements during their formative years. The main founders of both parties initiated their political careers in the struggle against repressive dictatorial regimes in the 1920s. subsequently, AD leaders drifted in a rightist direction, at least on certain issues, as did those of APRA. both parties entered the government in the immediate postwar years when, in response to the initiation of the Cold War, they drew close to the U.s. camp. finally, the charisfigure 6.1. Rómulo betancourt speaks to radio audiences in 1960 during his second presidency. he suffered burns on his hand during a terrorist attempt on his life. (Courtesy of El Tiempo de Puerto La Cruz) 134 / steve Ellner matic leadership of betancourt and Peru’s haya de la Torre and their frequent utilization of popular symbols have led historians to label both organizations populist. A second area of contention is the characterization of Rómulo betancourt as a social democrat prior to the founding of AD in 1941. social democratic movements emphasize reform programs and fail to link them to socialism and other long-term goals relegated to the distant future. The case for labeling the young betancourt a social democrat is based on his insistence in the 1930s that fellow leftists embrace a “minimum program” without publicly identifying with more ambitious, far-reaching changes. Although there are important points of comparison between AD on the one hand, and APRA and social democracy on the other, the unique characteristics of the venezuelan populists are worthy of special analysis. in order to determine differences and similarities, it is necessary to go beyond a mere discussion of the positions and policies pursued by AD. These stands in themselves were never that far reaching and thus cannot explain the vehemence of the conservative reaction to AD’s control of the government during the Trienio (1945–48). This essay will examine AD’s potential for far-reaching change and the unannounced revolutionary strategy adhered to by many party leaders, which had its origins in the early thinking of betancourt. A second, related topic is AD’s internal structure, which was to a certain degree the logical consequence of this strategy. Populism’s legacy and its influence in contemporary venezuelan politics will also be examined, as well as the reemergence of...