The Basis of Support for Hugo Chávez: Measuring the Determinants of Presidential Job Approval in Venezuela

Since 1999, Venezuela has experienced a dramatic transformation of its political system with the coming to power of Hugo Chávez and his movement, known in Venezuela as Chavismo. Chávez has dismantled the previous political system and established neo-populist structures that rely on his personal appeal and the close collaboration of the armed forces. Chávez has relied heavily on significant support from the poor and those who felt economically and politically excluded by the “Punto Fijo system.” President Chávez has built an impressive record of electoral victories; winning every electoral contest except one since coming to power in 1999. He continues to receive relatively high levels of support among sectors of Venezuelan society. However, there is evidence of growing discontent with high crime rates, high levels of inflation, and significant corruption in the public administration. Using data from the AmericasBarometer surveys conducted in 2007, 2008 and 2010, this paper seeks to examine the basis of Chávez’s popular support. In general, the AmericasBarometer findings suggest that Venezuelans support for President Chávez is closely linked to the access to social programs and that as long as the government is able to fund these social programs or missions, particularly MERCAL and Barrio Adentro, it will possess an important tool to garner and sustain support for President Chávez. Our analysis, however, also indicates that evaluations of the national economic situation, more than crime or insecurity, are a key factor that could undermine support for the regime.

A case study of the development of the Argentinean community college system

In the 1980's and 1990's, Argentina was undergoing significant political, social and economic changes as a result of the change over from a military driven government to elected governments. A major aspect of the change was an increased emphasis on privatization, and promotion of foreign and domestic investment in Argentina. Higher education leaders were increasingly drawn into developing a national strategy for changing the educational structure to help facilitate changes in other aspects of the society. Preliminary reviews by the Argentinean higher education leaders indicated that adaptation of the American community college promised to help achieve the national goals. ^ The purpose of this study was to determine: if and how the community college concept, an American invention, could be adapted to function in Argentina, a nation with a significantly different history of political, social, cultural and economic development. Achieving this purpose involved: identifying the key leaders in the movement that developed to apply the community college concept in Argentina; the study of their perspectives regarding the movement as it developed; and tracking the assistance given by selected American community college leaders. ^ The case study method was employed in this research, using interview and historical data collection. Key leaders from higher education in the United States and Argentina were interviewed in-depth, to determine their views. An interview protocol with appropriate sub-questions was followed to ensure complete coverage. The interviewees identified several major areas of education in need of change including, the system, access to the system, new areas of study, integration into the hemisphere and, in general, decentralization. Historical review revealed a steady development of the community college concept in Argentina reflected in documentation of events, conceptual writings and legal structures. ^ It was concluded that there is a community college structure beginning to emerge that, so far, in broad outline, follows the structure developed in the United States. It is anticipated however, that future developments will include conceptual aspects to the model reflective of Argentina. ^

The Politics of Ahmadinejad and Chavez: A Misplaced Comparison

This piece illustrates that comparing the political and economic impact of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on their respective countries based solely on generalizations regarding similarities in foreign policy discourse is an unwarranted analytical jump. To identify the essential difference between the two administrations, the article pays attention to the different domestic politics in each country. Ahmadinejad’s populism seems to fit best within neoliberal populism. In stark contrast, Chavista socialism can be understood as a “heterodox” or “alternative” economic policy.