Democratization in Uruguay vs. Venezuela: A Comparative Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Political Culture
Economic Development
Dependency Theory
Resource Curse
Counterarguments
Works Cited

Democracy appears to be a disputable topic in the states of Latin America. The third wave of democratization has shed some light on overseeing nations, and Latin American countries fail to maintain the principles of democracy (Arias 5; Brinks et al. 1; Leader 10). Some governments in the region are inclined toward autocracy or authoritarianism (Arias 5; Leader 10). Such a tendency undermines democracy, which prioritizes human rights and equality before the law (Brinks et al. 2; Leader 10). For instance, the Freedom House score for Venezuela is 13=F+ because the state has the least free ratings for political rights and civil liberties (Repucci and Slipowitz 49). The lack of democracy in Venezuela may be due to the endeavors of Hugo Chávez, who behaved like a caudillo and promoted dictatorship (Arias 5; Leader 10; Moreno 7). In comparison, Uruguay scores 2=A as its civil liberties and political rights ratings are among the most free, and the country is considered an electoral democracy (Repucci and Slipowitz 49). Venezuela and Uruguay’s positions can be explained by theoretical perspectives of political culture, economic development, dependency approach, and the resource curse.

Political Culture

Political culture is the first theory that can explain democratization in Uruguay and Venezuela. The concept of political culture refers to a civil orientation toward governmental objects, and the idea concentrates on attitudes reflected in surveys regarding political systems (Akaliyski 23; Voinea 363). However, acquiring data about public opinion in Venezuela is difficult because its administration has chosen an authoritarian path and undermines freedom of speech and assembly (Corrales 40; Seelke et al. 3). Nonetheless, some insight into the citizens’ mindsets can be gathered from electoral information. Venezuela’s last election involved repression, manipulation of voting centers, banning of candidates, and 46% voter turnout resulting in 67.6% percent in Nicolás Maduro’s favor (Corrales 41; Seelke et al. 4). Accordingly, Venezuela reflects how “Latin America shows that democracies can easily decay” (Leaders 10). Notably, Maduro’s regime has an opposition represented by democratically elected Juan Guaidó, whom approximately 61 countries recognize as Venezuela’s interim president (Seelke et al. 4). Consequently, one can assume that the attitudes of people in Venezuela are not positive toward the present political culture but cannot confront the government due to Maduro’s authoritative tactic.

On the other hand, Uruguay is more transparent about public opinion. While Venezuela has been authoritarian for a long time, Uruguay has a considerable history of democracy (Buquet and Rodríguez 116; Corrales 39; Selios 25). Uruguayan political culture is associated with strong party discipline, stability, and low levels of corruption (Buquet and Rodríguez 119; Selios 25). Therefore, surveys of citizens’ attitudes for many years have demonstrated “institutional trust and support for democracy” (Selios 26). However, the country has experienced changes in electoral regulations alongside political, economic, and social realities (Buquet and Rodríguez 119; Selios 25). Consequently, public opinion in Uruguay can be characterized by moderate ideological polarization, which does not typically cause conflicts but rather makes voting decisions more programmatic (Buquet and Rodríguez 122; Selios 26). Notably, there is a controversial point that appeared in two different sources. One study suggests that electorates’ programmatic attitude overweighs clientelistic and personalistic mindsets, but another research mentions that Uruguayans focus on personal perspectives (Buquet and Rodríguez 122; Selios 26). Overall, the political culture in Uruguay is interconnected with democracy but is reflected through authoritarian rule in Venezuela.

Economic Development

A perspective that can further examine Venezuela and Uruguay is modernization theory or economic development. The concept of modernization refers to a transformation from traditional to modern, and the approach analyzes such metrics as GDP and GDP per capita (Acemoglu and Robinson 26; Fritzsche and Vogler 2; Sagdullaeva 359). Although economic development is quite contentious, its proponents claim that wealth affects democratization (Acemoglu and Robinson 26; Fritzsche and Vogler 2). Maduro’s authoritarian administration is affiliated with an economic crisis in Venezuela (Corrales 42; Seelke et al. 1). The latest GDP and GDP per capita under Maduro’s presidency are for the year 2020 and are $47,300 and $1,540, respectively (Seelke et al. 1). Uruguay is perceived as a “contemporary achiever” that has recently registered modest financial triumphs (Buquet and Rodríguez 115). Uruguay presents data for 2021, with a GDP of $59,319.55 and a GDP per capita of $17,020.6 (The World Bank, “GDP”; The World Bank, “GDP per capita”). While modernization may not necessarily cause democratization, the theory shows that a democratic state may have better finances and perceived economic growth than an authoritarian government.

Furthermore, economic development concerns the matters of monetary inequality and poverty. Higher inequality may reduce the probability of democracy, and Latin America is among the world’s most unequal areas (Fritzsche and Vogler 3; Moreno 3; The Americas 25). Since Maduro’s presidency, Venezuela has faced substantial economic troubles, and about 90% of citizens are now poverty-stricken (Bhattacharya and Nisha 80; Van Roekel and De Theije 9). Many necessities in the country are scarce, and the minimum wage is $1.25 a day, which is lower than the standard of extreme poverty (Bhattacharya and Nisha 80; Van Roekel and De Theije 9). Uruguay’s economy is characterized by the spread of COVID-19 as poverty and inequality alongside low salaries were realities in the nation but were mitigated due to the pandemic (Pittaluga and Deana 29; Ribero 36). In particular, poverty has increased by more than 11% compared to the previous 8%, and inequality rates have reached 4% (Pittaluga and Deana 29; Ribero 37). Accordingly, inequality and poverty appear to be more challenging for authoritarian Venezuela than for democratic Uruguay.

Dependency Theory

Another standpoint that is associated with democratization is dependency theory. The concept of dependency explains the international financial disparity, and the idea examines how wealth is acquired at the expense of poorer nations (Vang-Phu and Ayub Dar 5; Vincent 39). The approach concentrates on globalization and assumes that industrialized governments control peripheral countries (Vang-Phu and Ayub Dar 1; Vincent 39). Globalization may contribute to democratization by making dictatorships costlier or by suggesting that democracy is less threatening to the elites, although the latter notion undermines democracy (The Americas 26; Xie et al. 1). In Venezuela, Maduro was handpicked by Chávez to continue the former president’s politics, which included opposing globalization (Bhattacharya and Nisha 81; Corrales 39). In contrast, Uruguay has embraced the globalization trend to remove restrictions on international trade (Awosusi et al. 3). The composition of exports for trade is represented primarily by the agriculture sector in Uruguay and oil in Venezuela (Awosusi et al. 3; Seelke et al. 9; Van Roekel and De Theije 9). Overall, dependency theory shows that globalization is accepted by democratic Uruguay and rejected by authoritarian Venezuela.

Resource Curse

An approach that can also demonstrate successes and failures is the resource course. The idea implies that resource-richness is not a “blessing for an economy” but rather a cause of such issues as labor force reallocation and fluctuations in government revenues (Wieprzowski 142). The resource curse is connected to democratization through political institutions that manipulate commodity prices (Bergougui and Murshed 1; Wieprzowski 144). For instance, oil-wealth governments use the resource to delay democracy, and oil has traditionally accounted for about 90% of total export trade in Venezuela (Bergougui and Murshed 2; Seelke et al. 9). However, the country is mismanaging oil production, and the oil sector is sanctioned by the US, hindering Venezuela’s economy (Seelke et al. 10; Van Roekel and De Theije 10). In comparison, Uruguay does not have many natural resources and focuses on agriculture but “ranks top in the Latin American region in terms of GDP per capita” (Awosusi et al. 3). Consequently, the resource curse shows that democratic and agrarian Uruguay has more financial triumphs than authoritarian oil-rich Venezuela.

Counterarguments

Theoretical perspectives on democratization are quite controversial, so it is important to consider some counterarguments. The position presented in the paper is the correct one because it explains different patterns of democratization, with democratic Uruguay having more success than authoritarian Venezuela. Notably, theoretical perspectives of political institutions and the international community may not add more considerable insights because some of the above-discussed approaches concern politics and the two countries’ global standings. For example, worldwide associations do not seem to affect authoritarianism in Venezuela because, despite many governments not recognizing Maduro as president, he remains in power (Seelke et al. 1). Furthermore, some may dispute that modernization does not cause democracy, yet evidence suggests that modernization leads to democratization through political culture (Acemoglu and Robinson 26; Akaliyski 24). Others may claim that dependency theory and its focus on globalization do not promote democracy, but one can counter by stating that dimensions of globalization influence democratization, although in distinct ways (Xie et al. 11). Overall, the public and scholars have varying perceptions regarding democratization theories. Nonetheless, the examples of Uruguay and Venezuela indicate that the approaches adequately determine democracy’s triumphs.

Works Cited

Acemoglu, Daron, and James Robinson. “Beyond Modernization Theory.” Annals of Comparative Democratization, vol. 16, no. 3, 2018, pp. 26-31.

Akaliyski, Plamen. “Political Culture Research: Current Ontological and Epistemological Debates.” European Journal of Political Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, 2021, pp. 23-27.

Arias, Oscar. “Culture Matters: The Real Obstacles to Latin American Development.” Foreign Affairs, 2011, pp. 2-6.

Awosusi, Abraham Ayobamiji, et al. “The Sustainable Environment in Uruguay: The Roles of Financial Development, Natural Resources, and Trade Globalization.” Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 10, 2022, 1-13.

Bergougui, Brahim, and Syed Mansoob Murshed. “New Evidence on the Oil-Democracy Nexus Utilising the Varieties of Democracy Data.” Resources Policy, vol. 69, 2020, pp. 1-20.

Bhattacharya, Subhendu, and Yn Nisha. “Economic and Social Turmoil in Venezuela Caused by Autocracy and Misgovernance.” International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, vol. 3, no. 12, 2020, pp. 80-83.

Brinks, Daniel, et al. Understanding Institutional Weakness: Power and Design in Latin American Institutions. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Buquet, Daniel, and Rafael Piñeiro Rodríguez. “Party System Change and Transparency in Uruguay.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, pp. 113-129.

Corrales, Javier. “Authoritarian Survival: Why Maduro Hasn’t Fallen.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 31, no. 3, 2020, pp. 39-53.

Fritzsche, Erik, and Anselm Vogler. “Why the Confusion? Reasons and Remedies for Shortcomings and Progress in Modernization Theory.” Democratization, vol. 27, no. 7, 2020, pp. 1-19.

Leaders. “Latin America: How Democracies Decay.” The Economist, 2022, p. 10.

Moreno, Luis Alberto. “Latin America’s Lost Decades.” Foreign Affairs, 2021, pp. 1-9.

Pittaluga, Lucía, and Atilio Deana. “Evidence-Based Policies in Uruguay Are Successful for Tackling COVID-19.” Open Journal of Political Science, vol. 11, no.1, 2021, pp. 21-33.

Repucci, Sarah, and Amy Slipowitz. “Table – Freedom in the World 2021: Independent Countries.” Journal of Democracy, 2021, pp. 48-49.

Ribero, Ximena Baráibar. “I Warned You and You Didn’t Listen to Me: Poverty and Inequality during the Pandemic in Uruguay.” Critical Proposals in Social Work, vol. 2, no. 3, 2022, pp. 30-49.

Sagdullaeva, Dilbar. “Some Issues of Modernization of Society.” Conference Zone, 2022, pp. 359-362.

Seelke, C. R. et al. “Venezuela: Background and US Relations.” Congressional Research Service, 2021, pp. 1-36.

Helios, Lucía. “Presidential Approval in a Context of Political and Institutional Change: The Uruguayan Case.” Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, vol. 18, no. 6, 2021, pp. 24-45.

The Americas. “Inequality in Latin America is Fuelling a New Wave of Populism.” The Economist, 13 Aug. 2022, pp. 25-27.

The World Bank. “GDP (Current US$).” WorldBank, Web.

The World Bank. “GDP per capita (Current US$).” WorldBank, Web.

Van Roekel, Eva, and Marjo De Theije. “Hunger in the Land of Plenty: The Complex Humanitarian Crisis in Venezuela.” Anthropology Today, vol. 36, no. 2, 2020, pp. 8-12.

Vang-Phu, Tran, and Mohamad Ayub Dar. “Understanding the Global Political Economy Using Dependency Theory.” International Journal of Politics, Law, and Management, vol. 1, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-6.

Vincent, Richard. “News Flow Research During and After the MacBride Era.” Media Development, vol. 67, no. 2, 2021, pp. 37-42.

Voinea, Camelia Florela. “Political Culture Research: Dilemmas and Trends.” Quality & Quantity, vol. 54, no. 2, 2020, pp. 361-382.

Wieprzowski, Paweł. “Copper in Chile – When the Resource “Curse” Becomes a Blessing.” International Journal of Management and Economics, vol. 40, 2013, pp. 141-154.

Xie, Yize, et al. “Globalization, State Capacity and the Third Wave of Democratization: An Empirical Study.” Applied Economics, vol. 53, no. 29, 2021, pp. 1-14.

Click Here To Order Now!