The Democratic Consensus in Venezuela: 1972 and 2002

By Levine, Daniel H. | Ibero-americana, January 1, 2003 | Go to article overview

The Democratic Consensus in Venezuela: 1972 and 2002


Levine, Daniel H., Ibero-americana


I. INTRODUCTION

Thinking about democratic consensus in the context of Venezuela in 1972 and 2002 evokes images of something lost: agreement on basic norms, operating principles, commonly shared resources and institutions in which political opponents could agree to work together. Many of these elements did indeed characterize the political arrangements of post-195 8 democracy, and to the extent that we define consensus in terms of what was built in that period, the element of loss is palpable. Although there is loss, and loss of consensus has clear consequences for the way politics is carried on, more is at issue than just loss. The Venezuela of 2002 is a very different society than the Venezuela of 1972. Understanding the changes of these three decades is essential to explaining the decay of the kind of consensus put in place in 1972, and the real possibilities of building a new kind of political consensus.

II. THE CONCEPT OF CONSENSUS

As a concept, consensus has been used in many different, although related, ways. The most common usage points are either on norms or common ideological framework, or on a group of facts. In this sense, consensus can be about ideas and values, or about substantive issues or policies. A related usage directs attention to procedures, to agreement over how things are to be done, where decisions are to be taken, what resources are to be employed or accepted as decisive. Both ideological and procedural consensuses are important parts of any political process. Ideological or goal oriented consensus gets people together to act for a common end; procedural consensus makes it possible for them to cooperate even if they may not agree on a specific measure or goal, and to accept the results as legitimate, even in cases where their preferred outcome does not happen. In this latter sense, procedural consensus has to do with the construction of common institutions and the recognition of these institutions and their rules as decisive. With agreement on the procedures of elections, or courts, those in opposing camps would be bound (and feel obliged) to recognize outcomes as legitimate, and accept them even if their particular side loses. The construction of procedural consensus is an important component of social and political peace. Procedural consensus can be fragile, and its continuing validity is never automatic: all major parties must work at maintaining it.

The practical opposite of consensus would be polarization, a situation that in which groups are so totally divided and agreement (substantive or procedural) so limited as to make common action impossible. Extremes of polarization make it difficult for opposing groups to work within the same institutions and to accept the legitimacy of the outcomes they produce, particularly if they consistent losers over the long term. This was clearly the case for opponents of Action Democratica in the 1945-48 trienio. Contemplating the enormous majorities AD got, opposing groups concluded that it was impossible to win by playing according to these rules and therefore joined in coalitions to overthrow the regime in November 1948. The lessons that the leadership of major parties like AD, COPEIU and URD drew from the trienio underscored the importance of controlling polarization by building institutions to channel and control conflict.

Agreement, whether procedural, ideological, or substantive, is necessary but not sufficient for democratic consensus. To be democratic in the modern world, political rules and arrangements must meet other criteria: there must effective universal suffrage, barriers to information and organization must be reasonable and as low as possible, and there must be multiple points of access to power for citizens. A rule of law in place must treat citizens equally and equitably and there must be open and reasonably equal access to the institutions of the law. There is a further condition of democratic consensus, of growing importance in the contemporary world: political processes must be as open as possible to citizen judgment and evaluation. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Democratic Consensus in Venezuela: 1972 and 2002
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.