HUGO CHAVEZ FRIAS (1954 – 2013)

A 21st CENTURY CHARISMATIC SOCIALIST?

By Sam Swash

1

S A M S W A S H

Student Number: 1016615 | Word Count: 8,248 | Date of Submission: 20/06/2013

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of BA (Hons), Politics at the University of Chester, 2013. This work is originaland has not been submitted previously in support of any qualification or course.

Sam Swash

2

“The repeated victories of Hugo Chavez prove that history has notended, as Francis Fukuyama, the neo-con guru claimed twenty years ago.

That another way is possible. That the mass of the people can beengaged in politics, and their hearts can, if captured, beat louder than

the drums of despair, disillusion and dread.”

(George Galloway, ‘Today with the Comandante We Stand’, Red Molucca, 08/10/2012)

3

Abstract

This paper examines the charismatic style and nature of former Venezuelan

President Hugo Chavez Frias’ presidential leadership of the Venezuelan state

from his successful inauguration as president on the 2nd of February 1999

through until his death on the 5th March 2013. Whilst analysing Chavez’

radical style and image through his relationship with the Venezuelan working

class, his use of historical references as well as his relationship and

diplomacy within the Latin American community, the paper argues that Hugo

Chavez successfully utilised Weberian charisma throughout his premiership in

order to both win successive elections and successfully reinvigorate the

purportedly moribund socialist ideology.

4

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Mark Bendall, for his

invaluable guidance throughout the entire dissertation process. He has helped

me transform this dissertation from a vague project on left-wing political

figures into a detailed and analytical political study. I greatly appreciate his

honesty in deviating me away from personal interests and under-researched

areas of study, as well as his personal advice and continued words of

encouragement throughout the duration of the writing process.

I would also like to thank my family for their continued support in the

completion of this research – my father for providing me with a role model

and instilling me with the ambition which has made this work possible and

my mother for her understanding and embracing of my idiosyncratic work

ethic. I would also like to thank my brother, Josh, and my closest university

friend, Livv Robinson, for without whose guidance and motivation, completion

of this work would not have been achievable.

Thank you.

5

Introduction

A relatively anonymous figure, globally, was Hugo Chavez when he was

elected as President of the oil-rich Venezuela in the 1998 presidential

election, with a landslide 56% of the national vote (Sylvia and Danopoulos,

2003, p. 64). Because of his anonymity on the global scene, it was uncertain

what sort of leader Chavez would become; a military dictator, a communist

or a neo-liberal conspirator like his predecessors. Since then, Chavez has

become one of the most polarising figures of 21st century politics, especially

in Latin America. He quickly and firmly established himself as a radical, a

champion of the poor and previously underrepresented and a staunch critic

of imperialism and neo-liberalism, fiercely rejecting the Western mantra of

free market capitalism. Along with Fidel Castro of Cuba, Chavez has become

a symbol of an alternative socialist economy and the flagrant manifestation

of anti-Americanism, whilst simultaneously overseeing and implementing a call

for a socialist-based solidarity amongst his fellow Latin American countrymen.

Chavez’s success, and Castro’s before him, has contaminated the region,

causing an ideological revision in Latin America, with fellow anti-imperialist

socialists such as Rafael Correa (Ecuador) and Evo Morales (Bolivia), winning

landslide presidential election victories and implementing similarly left-wing

policies.

Before Chavez’s rise to power in 1999, discontent had been growing with

the ruling elite within Venezuelan society. Like many countries across the

Latin American region, Venezuela turned to adopting more consensus-led

neo-liberal economic policies. “For most of the 1990’s, then, every country in

the region was moving towards freer markets and more open integration in

the global economy, and conservative, technocratic governance was

increasingly the norm.” (Levitsky and Roberts, 2011, p. ix) This was the case

in Venezuela, where President Carlos Andres Perez implemented neo-liberal

reforms and austerity measures utilised to counter declining oil prices.

Despite the government controlling “the largest reserves of conventional oil

6

(light and heavy crude) in the western hemisphere” (Wilpert, 2003, p. 1),

“upward of 70% of Venezuelans were living in poverty” (Wilpert, 2003, p. 7).

As well as this, corruption was rife in Venezuelan politics, with two political

parties, Accion Democratia (Democratic Action) and Copei (Social Christian

Party) monopolising political power, “playing predominant and hegemonic

roles, keeping up the pretence that Venezuela was a ‘democracy.’” (Gott,

2011, p. 21) The countries oil wealth had been lining the pockets of the

ruling elite whilst the average Venezuelan battled against poverty. Although

the oil boom of the 1970’s gave many outsiders an impression of

Venezuelan opulence, the following economic decline, resulting in the

aforementioned adoption of a neo-liberal austerity programme from President

Carlos Andres Perez, accentuated the dramatic social and economic

inequalities suffered by the Venezuelan people, engendering a plethora of

discontent whilst creating a situation ripe for Hugo Chavez’s ideals. After a

failed coup of Perez’s government in 1992, Chavez opted to seek change

through the ballot box rather than through revolutionary means, negotiating

an alliance between two left-wing parties, “La Causa R (Radical Change) and

the MAS (Movement Towards Socialism)” (Gott, 2011, p. 134) fecundating

Chavez’s new political party, The Movement for the Fifth Republic. On the 6th

December 1998, Chavez was successfully elected as President of Venezuela,

beating Henrique Salas Romer, with a landslide 56.2% of the national vote

(Kireev, 2007).

The purpose of this paper is not to judge neither the merit nor the

morality of Chavez and his brand of politics, but to examine the charismatic

nature of Chavez’s leadership of Venezuela in an attempt to explain his

popularity and its subsequent effect on the resurgence of socialism, with

particular emphasis upon Latin American socialist movements. Therefore, to

reach this objective, the research naturally focuses upon the more favourable

aspects of his presidential and personal image. The main theory to be

utilised and assessed throughout the paper is the sense of Weberian

7

charisma and how important a tool this proved to be in the development of

both Chavez’s political personality and his electability as a democratic

socialist. The notion of charisma will be applied throughout in the Weberian

sense, with ‘charisma’ being “understood to refer to an extraordinary quality

of a person, regardless of whether this quality is actual, alleged, or assumed”

(Weber, 1948, p. 295). As well as this, Chavez’s celebrity appeal to the

Venezuelan population will be examined in order to fully scrutinise the nature

of his charismatic charm. The proposal aims to understand the importance of

Chavez’s charisma and how attributable this is to his success as the

vanguard of the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ (the name given by Hugo Chavez to

his successful uprising and subsequent election as President of Venezuela)

and in his revolutionary proposition that “socialism is not dead, that it is

possible to resurrect and revise in such a way to make it a viable alternative

to traditional capitalism” (Shannon, 2007).

In doing this, the proposal will proceed to analyse the relationship between

Hugo Chavez and the figures he based his charismatic image upon - former

Cuban President Fidel Castro and 19th century Venezuelan revolutionary,

Simon Bolivar. The effect that these figures had on Chavez’s leadership and

the influence they had upon both his image and his rhetoric will be

examined in order to understand the nature and origins of them. This will be

done in an attempt to understand both the personal and ideological

influences, which these political figures had upon Chavez and his use of

rhetoric in cultivating a charismatic appearance and personality in the eyes

of the Venezuelan people.

Throughout the paper, Chavez will be examined through the lens of his

Latin American brand of socialism in order to help gain an understanding of

his charismatic leadership, whilst contextualising both the influences upon him

and the influences he has had upon modern day socialist ideology and

political thought.

8

Methodology

As this dissertation paper is taking the form of a literature review, the data

analysed will be qualitative. This research relies predominantly upon books

and academic journals for both reading and analysis, with some use of

global media. Where journal articles, in particular, have been used, care has

been taken to check the balanced nature of the publishing volumes in order

to rule out any potentially biased opinions. Also, where the dissertation relies

upon global media sources, an attempt has been made to offer a balanced

representation through using an unbiased and receptive approach to the

study, although care was ensured when reading and using these sources due

to their outwardly disparaging and antagonistic view of Hugo Chavez’s

presidential reign. Where media sources have been used, care has been

taken to verify such work for a balanced argument. The strength of

polarisation felt towards Chavez makes it difficult to confidently ascertain

objective media sources, which is a reason for a heavy reliance upon

academic research, journal articles and academic texts. However, where

media sources have been used, an attempt has been made to offer a

balanced representation of these polarised views.

9

Chapter One - Chavez, Weber and Celebrity

10

The aim of this first chapter is to apply and deconstruct theoretical

frameworks in regards to the leadership of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Weber’s theory of “charisma” (Weber, 1948, p. 295) will be applied to Chavez

as well as the theory of celebrification within a political paradigm outlined by

academics such as John Corner and John Street. These theories will be

analysed in order to reach a greater understanding of Chavez’s amorphous,

yet successful, 14-year leadership of the Venezuelan state. It aims to

question whether Hugo Chavez fits the conditions which Weber’s charisma

require and which are outlined in Willner’s study, who writes that “the leader

who becomes charismatic is the one who can inadvertently or deliberately

tap the reservoir of relevant myths in his culture and who knows how to

draw upon those myths that are linked to its sacred figures, to its historical

and legendary heroes and to the nations ordeal and triumphs” (1984, p. 62).

Max Weber suggested that charisma was “a certain quality of an individual

personality by virtue which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as

endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least superficially exceptional

qualities” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. 329). Weber classed charisma as a successful

way of “accounting for how political power is legitimated” (Dyer, 2013),

through authority being accepted because of a leaders charismatic nature.

This form of legitimising political power is often attributed to Latin American

leaders, including Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. “Latin America has long been

seen as fertile ground for the emergence of ‘charismatic’ populist leaders.

The leadership of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been portrayed as

a prominent example of this tendency” (Zuquete, 2008, p. 91).

“Charismatic appeal is effective especially when the social order is uncertain,

unstable and ambiguous and when the charismatic group or figure offers a

value, order or stability to counterpoise this” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. 128). The

adoption of neo-liberal austerity measures by Carlos Andres Perez and his

successor Rafael Caldera, partnered with a growing disillusionment with the

11

ruling elite in general created the ideal situation for Chavez’s rise. “Many

Venezuelans had become ‘charisma hungry’. They eagerly believed in populist

promises without performing a thorough reality check” (Weyland, 2003, p.

843). Chavez was the vanguard responsible for spearheading the ‘Bolivarian

Revolution’, a socialist movement inspired by Simon Bolivar, a 19th century

Venezuelan revolutionary leader who shared many of the views enacted by

Chavez’s socialist presidency, such as economic independence and the

“rejection of globalisation and neo-liberal economic policies and a focus on

using state resources to serve the poor - the president’s constituency”

(Trinkunas, 2005).

Weber described charisma as a type of authority, which exists and

transforms successfully when an individual’s claim of “specific gifts of body

and mind” (Weber, 1968, p. 1112) are both understood and accepted by the

society which they aim to represent. Hugo Chavez, like many socialist

leaders, prides himself upon his proletariat upbringing after “being born in a

mud hut” (Durac, 2011, p.9). This working class upbringing is a point of

identification for the Venezuelan working class, many of whom were born in

similarly poor conditions. However, this also simultaneously acts as a

demarcation between Chavez and the Venezuelan civilian population,

reflecting his exceptional charisma. Very few working class people born in

mud huts become the leader of an entire nation, which is exactly what Hugo

Chavez did and, in the eyes of many Venezuelans, subsequently evidences

the gifted nature of Chavez and his exceptional abilities as a leader of the

Venezuelan state. It creates a belief in his followers “in this radiant power,

when embodied in their relationship to a leader, is what constructs

charismatic domination” (Breuilly, 2011, p. 479) and helps to concentrate

traditional authority in the hands of a leader, rather than a collective, or a

government. “Leadership, therefore, is absent without authority, and authority

to lead can be present only when the ruled believe the ruler is rightfully

entitled to their willing obedience” (Nelson, 1984, p. 2). Chavez’s working

12

class and military upbringing led to the adoption of this charismatic,

messianic image in the eyes of the Venezuelan poor, allowing for the

subsequent bestowing of charismatic authority in Chavez’s hands.

The Mission and Nationalistic Charisma

“The charismatic quality of an individual as perceived by others, or himself

lies in what is thought to be his connection with some very central feature

of man’s existence and the cosmos in which he lives. The centrality, coupled

with intensity, makes it extraordinary.” (Shills, 1965) Much of Chavez’s

success, particularly in his early years as president, in building his

charismatic appeal, was based upon his working class upbringing and is

openly acknowledged and appreciated by others as “a valid basis for their

participation in an extraordinary programme of action. (Dow Jnr, 1978, p.83).

This programme of action, or ‘mission’ as Weber referred to it as, is one of

the most important aspects in generating a charismatic relationship between

a leader and a society. The leader is driven by his mission, a mission that,

in Chavez’s case, proved charismatically appealing to the Venezuelan working

class. Chavez’s mission was not only to reform elitist policies of the former

ruling classes, but to insist upon the inception of a ‘new Venezuela’, a

country for the people, saving them and “his nation from decadence”

(Zuquete, 2008, p. 98).

Thus, Venezuela was ripe for the “kind of charismatic domination that

develops in modern nation-states with strong existing nationalist sentiments

where a massive crisis has undermined the modern institutions of power. It is

on the basis of that nationalist ideology itself, linked to the notion of genius

– a kind of secular, modern equivalent to the idea of the sacred – that a

charismatic leader can emerge” (Breuilly, 2011, p. 487). Although Weber

associated nationalism with expansionist, annexationist and imperialist politics,

suggesting that “foreign policy should be national but not imperialistic”

13

(Weber, 1948, p. 114) the nation itself and nationalism was an inherent part

of the plethora of charisma which Chavez induced as the Venezuelan

President, combining “the economic nationalism and charisma of the classical

populists with greater leftist rhetoric and opposition to neo-liberalism” (March,

2007, p. 77). John Breuilly’s 2011 journal article Max Weber, Charisma and

Nationalist Leadership explains the importance of nationalism in cultivating a

charismatic style of leadership. Although Breuilly was writing about fascist

nationalism, some of his findings are relevant to the socialist charismatic

leadership enacted in Venezuela. Although many on the left-wing testify to

being, or are seen as, “anti-nationalists because of reactions against fascism

and the horrors of racist nationalism revived in today’s far-right” (Laxter,

2001, p. 11), nationalism, particularly economic nationalism, was and remains

an important part of both Venezuelan political apparatus and of the

countries society. An example of this is the widely shared set of beliefs,

which Breuilly suggests are “embodied in popular rituals and symbols”

(Breuilly, 2011, p. 486). The names of Chavez and his revolutionary

predecessor Simon Bolivar “can be found on buses and signs, their image

watching over the people in the form of paintings, murals, altars and statues”

(Price, 2009, p. 2) across Venezuela. The inclusion of a star on the

Venezuelan flag was also a decision made by Hugo Chavez in honour of

Simon Bolivar, a symbol of their homogenous revolutionary struggle. As well

as this, Chavez also utilised his charismatic oratory in reviving the

nationalistic passion’s of his population, trying “to combat the unquestioning

acceptance of neo-liberalism and capitalism with the revival of radical

nationalism” (Gott, 2000, p.27), through praising revolutionary working class

heroes such as Simon Bolivar and attacking the programme of globalisation

installed upon them by the ‘enemy’, the United States of America. The often

pugnacious and bellicose choice of nationalistic rhetoric, mixed with his

working class upbringing, helped convince a large section of the Venezuelan

population of Chavez’s charismatic credentials, removing any harbouring

scintilla of doubt in the minds of the masses over his revolutionary socialist

14

convictions.

Chavez - the Celebrity.

The role of celebrity is also important here, due to its close association

with charisma. “The mass visibility that is afforded by modern mediated

politics has foregrounded issues of ‘style, appearance and personality’”

(Corner, 2003, p. 2), aspects of judgement not previously afforded to

politicians, yet becoming excessively prevalent in a number of societies,

including Venezuela, where “some of the fences that separate politics from

entertainment and political leadership from media celebrity” (Corner and Pels,

2003, p. 2) have been eradicated throughout Hugo Chavez’s premiership.

Corner and Pels suggest that “politics has become more of a ‘culture

industry’, increasingly resembling a popularity contest”, where the majority of

people are no longer mobilised by ideology or party manifesto’s but by

“singular political figures who represent the issues in a distinctive manner.”

(2003, p. 2) This arguably was the case for Hugo Chavez and Venezuela,

where Chavez utilised a range of different media platforms in order to

communicate his charismatic image upon his Venezuelan citizens. “The

business of political communication is about turning politicians into celebrities

in order to organise the sentiments they want to represent” (Street, 2003, p.

92). Chavez’s continuous presence in the eyes and ears of the Venezuelan

people, was clear to see, from his television show, ‘Alo Presidente’, through to

him speaking “every Sunday on his own radio programme” (Gott, 2011, p. 6).

Television offers Chavez the perfect medium to showcase his charismatic

appeal, allowing him to convey his personality more appropriately than radio

and to a greater audience than a public speech. This, and his continued use

of social media are examples of his use of communication methods that are

“exclusively associated with celebrity” (Meyer, 2007, p. 195). Chavez utilises

these methods in order to make his use of charismatic personality more

15

accessible to the public, whilst their successes and high ratings (Levin, 2007,

p. 20) continued to validate Chavez’s use of charismatic authority as a

means of governance in the twenty-first century. Richard Gott supports this,

suggesting that it is “difficult to overestimate the impact that Chavez’s

broadcasts have on the largest and poorest sections of the Venezuelan

population... for he speaks as though he is in instant communion with his

own people, the people who understand what he is trying to say and do”

(2011, p. 7). One can argue one way or another about Chavez’s style of

politics and ideology, “but it is clear that he is a master of media spectacle

and celebrity politics” (Kellner, 2010, p. 122).

Chavez’s use of social media is an important example of his celebrification

as leader of the Venezuelan state. Twitter, a social media source where the

art of “celebrity is practiced” (Marwick, 2011, p. 1) was one of many

instruments used to communicate with his supporters on a daily basis, with

more than 4,000,000 people following him on Twitter. To make a comparison,

that’s a similar amount to the number of followers of boxing champion Floyd

Mayweather. Hugo Chavez ranks as the 187th most followed person on the

entire worldwide network. By comparison, UK Prime Minister David Cameron,

has just over half the followers of Chavez, with 2,200,000, ranking him as the

482nd most followed person on Twitter (Twitaholic, 2013).

Despite this seemingly apparent celebrity status, Hugo Chavez continued to

use his charisma to insist he was a man of the people, rather than a

celebrity or the sort of gauleiter’s he believed ran many Western states.

Chavez used his celebrity image and media appearance to reinforce the

basics of his charismatic appeal - his working class upbringing and his

struggle against globalised neo-liberalism - and continued to use them as the

foundations to strengthen the charismatic authority with which he governed

Venezuela. His use of ‘Alo Presidente’ to reinforce his messianic, paternalistic

image is an example of this. Chavez would not simply talk to the Venezuelan

population about politics, but address their social problems too, allowing

16

people to call in, to whom he offered tangible advice, such as a gentleman

who spoke to Chavez of the problems caused by his broken bicycle. Chavez

responded by sympathising, before instructing the caller where to take his

bicycle for a free repair.(Bartley and O’Briain, 2003). Further evidence of this

paternalistic nature was, when, upon Chavez’s death in March 2013, a tweet

from the former leader of the United Kingdom based, socialist RESPECT

Party, Salma Yaqoob, went viral on Twitter, depicting a picture of the

Venezuelan premier kissing the hands of his supporters at a rally on the

streets of the countries capital, Caracas, alongside the caption, “Hugo

Chavez. The only leader who used to kiss his people’s hands and not the

opposite” (see Plate 1, page 46).

17

Chapter Two - Influences upon Chavez (Castro andBolivar)

18

The aim of this chapter is to comprehend fully, both the charismatic and

revolutionist influences upon Hugo Chavez. In particular, the relationship

between Hugo Chavez Frias and his ally, the former president of communist

Cuba, Fidel Castro, will be scrutinised. As well as this, Chavez’s admiration of

19th century Venezuelan revolutionary, Simon Bolivar as a historic figure and

his emblematic and rhetorical utilisation of Bolivar’s emotional connection

with the Venezuelan poor as a way to strengthen his own revolutionary

image and legitimise his charismatic authority will be analysed. Precisely, this

chapter aims to ascertain to what degree Chavez modeled both his

charismatic revolutionist personality and his ideological methods upon that of

his ally Castro and predecessor Bolivar. In doing so, the research will also

make use of the resultant social policies and ideologies implemented by

Chavez in Venezuela and their role in cementing the charismatic image of

the former Venezuelan President.

There are a range of influences which former Cuban president Fidel Castro

had upon his counterpart in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, but of particular

interest here are his personal influences, the homogenous use of charisma

and its subsequent effect on the implementation of certain social policies.

Both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez shared structurally similar rises to

power in both Cuba and Venezuela.,“despite a disparity in age between

Castro and Chavez. Just as Fidel Castro became a national hero in Cuba

after his failed attempt to seize the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba

in July 1953, so Colonel Chavez was projected onto the national stage after

leading an unsuccessful military coup in February 1992” (Gott, 2011, p. 12).

As well as this, both spent time in prison before becoming the leaders of

their respected nations. This was imperative in creating the Hugo Chavez that

went on to lead the Venezuelan state for 14 years. “The close friendship of

Chavez and Castro, forged over the years… provided Chavez with

incomparable revolutionary credentials, of the kind that are recognised in the

19

shanty towns of Venezuela, where the majority of the population lives” (Gott,

2011, p. 13). These revolutionary credentials which Chavez proclaimed

resonated to the Venezuelan people, who saw this as further evidence of the

charismatic Chavez - an exceptional individual, whom not only rose from the

bottom of society, but also overcame many revolutionary battles and

struggles along the way.

These influences and battles continued through Chavez’s successful

election into his reign as president of Venezuela. Ever since Chavez’s election

in 1998, “Mr. Castro’s influence can be seen everywhere in Venezuela, from

the adoption of the Cuba like ‘Fatherland, Socialism or Death’ slogan by the

Venezuelan armed forces to Cuban doctors giving medical care and

agricultural experts implementing a land reform” (Luhnow, D. and de Cordoba,

2008, p. 3). Chavez reciprocated these favours with what has been described

as “Petro-Socialism” (Hidalgo, 2009, p.77), or more commonly known as

‘PetroCaribe’, a policy conceived by Castro and Chavez, which “provides an

energy life-saver to neighbouring Latin America countries at a time when the

price of oil had reached unaffordable levels” (Azicri, 2009, p. 100). This

solidarity between the Venezuelan and Cuban governments ensured

commitment to Chavez’s desire for Latin American solidarity in response to

the neo-liberal capitalism popular across the western world, whilst

simultaneously encouraging other Latin American countries to more seriously

consider the benefits of a united Latin America. From the initial bonding of

two charismatic leaders, a close political alliance was formed. The experience

has since been expanded to the rest of the hemisphere. “A new period, with

continental unity and solidarity as its core values, has commenced” (Azicri,

2009, p. 103).

Like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez utilised strongly anti-oligarchical rhetoric

and social policy during his presidential term as well as a passionate

insistence upon “independence from United States influence” (Danopoulos

and Sylvia, 2003, p. 64). In 2006, at a United Nations Conference, Chavez

20

famously described Bush’s American system as a “democracy for the elite

and a democracy of bombs” (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2006), in

response to his ally, Castro, in Cuba, being described as a dictator by the

United States of America. Chavez retorted that “Venezuela is traveling

towards the same sea as the Cuban people, a sea of happiness and of real

social justice and peace” (Gott, 2011, p. 13). Many see Chavez as the

designated “extra-territorial heir” (Hoffman, 2007, p. 21) to Castro’s

revolutionary and anti-American politics. This was consummated in the eyes

of the public in 2006 when Cuban state-media disseminated pictures of

Chavez next to Castro’s hospital bed, “not his brother Raul or any other

Cuban leader” (Hoffman, 2007, p. 21). This was the culmination of a

transmission of charisma by Weber’s ‘“ritual means from one bearer to

another” (Szelenyi, 2009), passing the mantle of Latin American revolution to

Hugo Chavez, similarly to his domestic transition to his brother, Raul Castro.

The designation on the part of the “original charismatic leader of his own

successor” (Weber, 1968, p. 55) is clearly visible in both cases.

Chavez’s victories in these battles, such as his re-emergence as president

following a failed coup in 2002, have only served to strengthen his

charismatic and exceptional image in the eyes of his main constituency, the

poor. Although the Bush administration denied involvement in the coup, it

continues to provide advice and financial support to many of Chavez’s

opponents as what it considers ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America and

beyond (Clement, 2005). The fact that Chavez remained highly electable in

the face of both these external and internal threats to his presidency are a

“key attributing factor” (Danopoulos and Sylvia, 2003, p. 66) in fortifying

“Chavez’s charismatic personality” (Weyland, 2003, p. 822) and his powerful

position as President of the Venezuelan state. As well as this, it has served

to strengthen Chavez’s overseeing of the creation of Latin American socialist

solidarity, or “the pink tide” (Beasley-Murray, Cameron and Hershberg, 2009,

p. 319), endorsed by fellow Latin American socialists such as Evo Morales of

21

Bolivia, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua as well as

Fidel Castro himself.

This desire started with the burgeoned relationship between Hugo Chavez

and Fidel Castro of Cuba. Chavez said of Venezuela’s relationship with Cuba

“Here we are, as alert as ever, Fidel and Hugo, fighting with dignity and

courage to defend the interests of our people, and to bring alive the idea of

Bolívar and Martí. In the name of Cuba and Venezuela, I appeal for the unity

of our two peoples, and of the revolutions that we both lead. Bolívar and

Martí, one country united!” (Gott, 2011, p. 13). Despite this alliance, however,

there were differences in the forms of governance offered by Castro and

Chavez. Cuba was and remains a communist state, whilst Venezuela is

outwardly socialist. Whereas Castro was influenced by the Soviet Union and

Stalinist communism, Castro’s influence on Chavez was more personal than

ideological, with Chavez straying away from adopting such a radical left

approach, choosing instead to offer socialism in Venezuela rather than

communism perhaps because of the importance of Venezuela’s oil industry to

its economic viability which was heavily reliant on the global, capitalist

market.

Both Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro attributed their inspiration and

ideological ideas to previous nationalist revolutionaries and placed great

emphasis upon their historical image when rising to political power and

solidifying their charismatic authority. Chavez was inspired by Simon Bolivar,

a 19th century revolutionary who played a key role in securing Venezuela’s

independence from the Spanish Empire. Bolivar was a “charismatic hero” and

a “nationalist icon” (Murray, 2009, p. 33). Similarly, Castro dedicated many of

his political beliefs to Jose Marti, the emblem for Cuba’s bid for

independence from Spain in the 19th century. The influence of Bolivar in

Venezuela is inherent; his image is the principal symbol of Chavez’s

movement. Chavez has not been remotely clandestine about incorporating

Bolivar into his political image, from Bolivar’s constant mentioning in Chavez’s

22

panegyric’s, to the most pronounced tribute of all; the legal change of the

nation’s name in order to make reference to Bolivar: The Bolivarian Republic

of Venezuela. However, as Richard Gott outlines, “this is not an exercise in

mindless nationalism, Chavez’s purpose is to venerate a figure to whom most

of his predecessors have only paid lip service, but also to rescue the

historical character and achievements of the Liberator (Bolivar) from the

accretions of myth and fable.” (2011, p. 92) Chavez adopts the charismatic

nature of Bolivar’s image and uses Bolivar’s success in the struggle against

colonialism to both support and justify his own anti-Americanism and battles

against foreign domination. An example of Chavez’s use of Bolivar, within the

paradigm of anti-imperialism came in 2004, when Chavez stated of

Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe, “For you who, like Bolivar took up arms

to liberate your people. For you who, like Bolivar, are and will always be a

true freedom fighter. He continues, alongside his people, to confront the

pretensions of new imperialists” (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2013).

Chavez and Castro utilised the images of these revolutionaries in order to

sustain their own charisma. Fidel Castro and Jose Marti, and Hugo Chavez

and Simon Bolivar are examples of leaders who borrow charisma from first

charismatic leaders whose lives are separated from those of the second

leaders by many decades. Hugo Chavez frequently, during his 14 year

presidency, suggested that the Venezuelan state was “carrying out the will of

Bolivar” (Mixon, 2009 p. 192), with Chavez harnessing the strong emotions of

his countrymen towards Bolivar as a way to strengthen his own image as a

charismatic political radical. “Hugo Chavez’s awareness, that the appropriation

of Bolivar’s historical myth promotes nationalism, fuels public support and

adds much needed legitimacy to his government, was clear to see” (Price,

2009). Chavez mentioned Bolivar constantly, using him as both the

foundations and reasonings for his policies and approach. Chavez continued

to assert that Venezuela wanted peace, saying, “Bolivar lived and died for

peace, but he was betrayed by the oligarchy and left humiliated, expelled,

23

alone to die. But now Bolivar’s dream is alive, alive in the streets of La

Vega, in the Venezuelan people, this is Bolivar!” (Chavez, 2003, p. 132). The

strength of emotion and respect for Simon Bolivar, a name which is

ubiquitous across Venezuela, granted almost exclusive endorsement for

policies and endeavors initiated under his name. “The Bolivarian cloak has

cleverly rendered Chavez’s actions unquestionable in the eye’s of Venezuela’s

poor masses” (LaFranci, 2000, p. 2). The use of Bolivar, alongside Chavez’s

failed coup and anti-imperialist stance help to “legitimise Chavez’s

revolutionary credentials towards the past as well as towards the future”

(Dabove, 2011, p. 11).

24

Chapter Three - The Brand of Charismatic Socialism

25

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse and evaluate the effect of Hugo

Chavez’s charismatic brand of socialism on the ideology as a whole in Latin

America, attempting to understand the relationship between a charismatic

leader and the success of socialist movements at a time when “many neo-

liberal pundits proclaimed the final death and burial of socialism under the

triumph of capitalism, heralded by globalisation” (Ukpere, 2007, p.1). It looks

into the question of how important an aspect charisma is in determining that

success, and whether modern day socialism is somewhat dependent on the

emergence of a charismatic leader.

Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador)

In recent years, Latin America has witnessed a resurgence of socialist

politics, with radical left-wing politicians winning elections in Argentina, Bolivia,

Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Although there are claims of

egalitarianism between these governments, it is important to note that there

are also marked differences, particularly in regards to leadership and global

economic integration policy. For the purpose of this study and due to the

constraints of it, the influence that Chavez’s brand of socialism has had on

Latin American socialism will concentrate predominantly on the governments

of Rafael Correa in Ecuador (2007-present) and Evo Morales in Bolivia (2006-

present) as pointers and examples of Chavez’s influence. The chapter will

also allude to the influence of charisma, (and subsequently, celebrity) the

common theme of the paper, in explaining this resurgence.

Although charisma, and socialism itself, have played a role in the solidarity

shown by Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, it is important to note that these

are not the sole reasons for this solidarity amongst these nations nor are

they entirely responsible for the subsequent resurgence of socialism in Latin

America. There is a far more historic bond between many countries in the

26

region, most notably the homogenous battles undertaken by them against

Spanish colonialism in the 19th century. “Remembering the battles against

Spanish colonialism is deeply rooted in the nations of Bolivia, Ecuador and

Venezuela. Especially the indigenous movements see themselves as inheritors

of their ancestors’ struggles for freedom from the yoke of Spanish

occupation and exploitation” (Kroth, 2012). However, this deep-rooted

emotion lends its weight to the support of Chavez’s anti-imperialist and anti-

American stance and is potentially one of the reasons for the Venezuelan’s

continued support of such policies.

However, charisma still plays an incrementally definitive role in both the

creation and continuance of the Correa (Ecuador) and Morales’ (Bolivia)

governments and should not be underestimated, as Correa and Morales have

both sought to govern using a similar type of charismatic authority to that of

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Correa and Morales have attempted to replicate

this in a number of ways. Aside from the ideological similarities, both Correa

and Morales place emphasis upon their “indigenous roots” (Kroth, 2012) and

the collectivist nature of the indigenous groups from which they come from.

Like Chavez, they were both born to working class families, providing them

with Weber’s ‘specific gifts of bodies and mind’ as were similarly attributed to

Hugo Chavez in the first chapter and they use this perception of them as a

hero, or a superman, to engage with the poorest in their societies and to

advertise their mission. “Evo Morales of Bolivia came to power with an

archetypal populist image, like that of Chavez, his striped woolly chompa1

emphasizing his ordinariness and strengthening his claim to be the candidate

of ‘the most disdained, the most discriminated against” (March, 2007, p. 71).

Similarly to Chavez, they advertise their mission through a range of media

outlets, particularly radio and television. “Variations of Chavez’s popular ‘Alo

Presidente’ have been introduced by Correa and on occasion, Morales”

(Kitzberger, 2010, p. 9) as a way for them to directly communicate with their

1Chompa – A sweater, or jacket (in Bolivarian Spanish). Morales is almost always seen wearing a chompa, a popular symbol of his indigenous Bolivian ancestry.

27

electorate.

As has been alluded to earlier in this paper, Chavez was insistent upon

improving Latin American solidarity as was acknowledged by Peruvian

President Ollanta Humala, who upon Chavez’s death in March 2013, said,

“We want to give them a big hug and continue with our Bolivarian, South

American and Latin American solidarity” (2013). This speech also evidences

another bond between Latin American nations that Chavez has used his

charismatic appeal and demagoguery to demonstrate and that is the unifying

figure that Simon Bolivar presents; a common emblem for Latin America

against imperialism. This bond has strengthened with time as “socialism and

Bolivarianism, more than just Latin American historic references, are

ideological paradigms that transcend national boundaries and spur leaders of

popular movements into action. Alongside the Havana-Caracas alliance, the

pursuit of Latin American unity is already bearing fruit with a commitment

and determination not seen before” (Azicri, 2009, p. 109).

“Using ballots, not bullets’, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa

have embarked on revolutionary projects to ‘refound’ their nations” (de la

Torre, 2012, p. 152). In Ecuador, Correa has utilised his charisma to “present

himself as the professor and redeemer of the nation” (de la Torre, 2013, p.

1), like Chavez, strongly rejecting neo-liberalism and United States influence.

A manifestation of this is Correa’s decision to grant Wikileaks founder Julian

Assange asylum within the Ecuadorian embassy in London in August 2012,

with Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patino issuing the following

statement on behalf of the Ecuadorian government, “Previous governments in

Ecuador did what the US or Europe told them… What has happened since

2007, since Rafael Correa has been president… is that we have started to

think with our own head and we walk on our own feet. We have dignity and

sovereignty” (Al Jazeera, 2012). This statement evidences both the anti-neo-

liberal agenda of the Ecuadorian state and the importance placed upon the

28

charismatic authority of the leader, Rafael Correa, who is solely responsible,

according to Patino, for the decision and for the change in attitude, which

led to the decision to grant Assange asylum. This sort of act may help to

cement Correa’s charismatic authority in his country, by proving to his people

that his charismatic rhetoric is matched with a willingness to stand up for his

principles, even if that means defying one of the world’s most authoritative

powers.

Charisma and Socialism - Mutually Harmonious?

Max Weber defined authority as having three sources, “traditional, rational-

legal and charismatic” (Weber, 1945, p. 291). Traditional authority was passed

down through generations, an example being a monarchy, a “patrimonial

state when the prince organises his political power over extra-patrimonial

areas and political subjects - which is not discretionary and not enforced by

physical coercion - just like the exercise of his patriarchal power” (Weber,

1968, p. 1013). However, socialism today, rarely has the cultural basis on

which this form of authority can be built (Exceptional cases do exist, such as

the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (North Korea) Kim dynasty,

although a plethora of questions remain over the socialist credentials of

North Korea), when capitalism continues to reign supreme in the globalised

world.

Rational-legal authority “is created when a society trusts an individual or

group to hold power, such as an elected president” (Morris, n.d, p. 1). Many,

however, ostensibly deemed it equally unlikely that a socialist could gain

power through the ‘rational-legal’ means of authority because of their

revolutionary credentials, rather “they (socialists) would take the law into their

own hands” (Morris, n.d, p. 1) as Hugo Chavez did unsuccessfully in 1992

after spearheading a failed military coup. However, Chavez did, successfully

gain rational-legal authority when he won the 1998 Venezuelan Presidential

29

election.

Despite this, it has been with Weber’s third strand of authority, ‘charismatic

authority’, which Chavez has been most closely associated with, as has been

argued throughout this paper. It is this type of authority that is of interest

here, due to its close association with successful socialist movements, some

of which have been mentioned earlier in this chapter (Correa in Ecuador,

Morales in Bolivia). Charismatic authority is, such as seen in the case of

Chavez and his working class support, the devotion to “the specific and

exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person”

(Weber, 2009, 328) rather than a collective, as a hero. Because of the

importance of the charismatic leader to the socialist cause, “left-wing

parties… emphasize a charismatic leader who has unmediated communication

with his people and distaste for formal organisation” (March, 2007, p. 66).

The importance placed upon the uncovering of a charismatic leader can be

seen as a reaction to the electoral success attributed to charismatic socialist

leaders such as Hugo Chavez who have governed in this way, whilst winning

landslide majorities at democratic elections.

Ivan Szelenyi, in his book Theories of the New Class: Intellectuals and

Power, suggests that socialism is reliant upon charismatic authority and

struggles to function, or be successful, without it. This paper has alluded to

Chavez’s ‘brand’ of socialism, which is important in understanding how

ideology can be receptive to charisma. In a world where socialism has all but

been wiped off the map and the centre ground of the political spectrum is

inhabited by most world powers, “ideology is less an indicator of political

principle, and more a ‘brand’, a device used for identifying the general

character of an individual, or party” (Street, 2003, p. 88). If this is

understood to be the case, then the importance of charisma to socialist

ideology takes on more importance, due to the fluidity of modern day

ideology. The vast majority of successful socialist movements in the twenty

first century are led by a charismatic figure, perhaps this being a reason for

30

Chavez’s influential socialism often being branded as “21st Century Socialism”

(Dugan and Profaizer, 2007, p. 1). Like the celebrity of an individual, the

brand of a political party, or movement, appears to be important in

determining its success.

It is clear from the examples of successful Latin American socialists, that

charisma plays an important role in their electability. Not only in Latin

America is this the case, but in Europe too where figures such as George

Galloway of the RESPECT Party in the United Kingdom, Jean-Luc Melenchon

of the Front De Gauche (Left Front) in France and Alexis Tsipras of Syriza in

Greece, have utilised their charismatic, celebrity images mixed with a rejection

of neo-liberal capitalism in order to win successful election under socialist

monikers.

According to Szelenyi however, state socialism faced “severe problems in

institutionalising charisma” (2004) and that with the death of a charismatic

leader, usually the “revolutionary leader” who was responsible for the

creation of their socialist state, a “period of state socialist legitimatisation

crisis” (2004, p. 76) is inevitable. This has already been apparent following

the death of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, where the majority of the global

media have continued to doubt and question whether, his successor, Nicolas

Maduro, “can fill his charismatic predecessor’s big shoes” (Kulmun Newswire,

2013). This concern was replicated by the electorate in the April 2013

presidential election, with Maduro winning by less than 2%, compared to

Chavez winning “by more than 10 percentage points” (British Broadcasting

Corporation, 2013), just six months earlier in October 2012.

Lenin is another example of a charismatic leader. Stalin and his East

European deputies “made an effort to transfer Lenin’s charisma onto

themselves” (Szelenyi, 2003, p. 76), whilst immortalising Lenin in the Soviet

psyche through ritualistic means such as the embalming of his body. This

was also apparent in the case of Venezuela, where Chavez announced

31

Maduro as his preferred successor, with his supporters placing great

emphasis upon the working class upbringing of Maduro and his previous job

as a bus driver in Caracas; an early sign that the Venezuelan state socialist

machine was attempting to transfer Chavez’s charismatic image onto Nicolas

Maduro and create a cult of personality around him. This again appears to

evidence the importance of charisma to socialist ideology, through the clear

attempt to transfer charisma, as was the case with Lenin and Stalin as

Szelenyi outlined and as was also the case with Fidel Castro and Hugo

Chavez as alluded to in chapter two. This evidence therefore supports

Szelenyi’s opinion that modern day socialism is now dependent on a

charismatic leader in order for it to be successful both politically, in terms of

winning elections, and socially, in terms of organising and mobilising mass,

government-backed movements.

32

Conclusion

This research has sought to demonstrate that Hugo Chavez’s charismatic

appeal was successful, alongside his use of charismatic authority and is

attributable to the success of the Bolivarian Revolution, as well as playing an

important role in the adoption of similar methods in his fellow Latin

American countries. His adroit articulation of socialism, anti-imperialism and

symbolic historical reference, “anchored in charismatic and messianic frames”

(Zuquete, 2008, p 115) have been responsible for the continuation and

growth of his nationalistic movement, both within and outside Venezuela’s

national borders. His links to Fidel Castro, as well as to the indigenous

Venezuelan population coupled with his charismatic and rhetorical use of the

nation’s hero, Simon Bolivar, helped to instill a desire for his sacralisation

and worship amongst his population, especially the poor, as well as binding

him and his followers together through their common social background,

politics and enemies. As has been attempted to be outlined in the three

chapters, Chavez fits all the requirements of Weber’s charismatic definition

through his successful use of his upbringing and his specific reference to

Simon Bolivar, Chavez successfully managed to create a cult of personality

that was both appreciated and reverberated amongst the Venezuelan working

class. Although the use of Simon Bolivar’s historical image and charisma was

an integral part of Hugo Chavez’s success, it aided Chavez’s transformation

into an accepted charismatic leader himself. Upon his death in March 2013,

the majority of the media who were antagonistic or bellicose towards

Chavez’s government, described him as “charismatic” (Walser, 2013).

The name Hugo Chavez now stands alongside that of Simon Bolivar as

ubiquitous across Venezuela. They have embraced Hugo Chavez as an

extraordinary hero of the historic magnitude of Bolivar. He has been

“positively defined as all that is not olquarqía [oligarchy]... the incarnation of

the authentic, the good, the just, and the moral. It confronts the oliguarqía,

representing the unauthentic, the foreign, the evil, the unjust and the

33

immoral” (de la Torre, 2000, p. 15). Although, as alluded to in the second

chapter, Chavez certainly used methods often associated with celebrity to

manage and maximise the Venezuelan population’s access to him, his use of

media such as television and Twitter was more attributable to a reinforcing

of his paternalistically charismatic nature. Chavez was an exceptional

Venezuelan, but an ordinary, indigenous Venezuelan nonetheless, rather than

a celebrity as such.

Fidel Castro’s influence in moulding Chavez as a leader who would go on

to govern using charismatic authority should not be underestimated and

while it is not to call into doubt, in fact the opposite, Chavez’s charismatic

qualities of his own, “he greatly benefitted from tapping into Fidel’s charisma

in terms of becoming his designated heir to continue the Latin America-wide

project of revolution and anti-imperialism of which the Cuban Revolution of

1959 had been but the beginning” (Hoffman, 2007, p. 21).

As well as winning large majorities in each of his presidential elections,

Hugo Chavez continued to have a sizeable and active support base across

Venezuela, which allowed him to continue to reshape his country in

accordance with his socialist, Bolivarian vision. The impact of this Bolivarian

vision is not just restricted to the borders of Venezuela though; it has now

become an international influence. Chavez’s charismatic appeal was further

strengthened by the support and sympathy his movement was afforded by

his Latin American allies, many of whom have been heavily influenced by

Chavez and his brand of charismatic socialism, with governments such as

those of Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia undertaking a

similar approach to governing, both rhetorically and ideologically. Like

Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have “weakly insitutionalised oppositions,

intense popular mobilisations by governments, and windfall hydrocarbon rents

which have encouraged new forms of popular sovereignty” (Kitzberger, 2010,

p. 13), but they have also heavily backed Chavez’s call for Latin American

solidarity, by strengthening socialism with varying degrees of charismatic

34

authority. Alongside Castro, Chavez through his fiery rhetoric and supportive

economic policies has been a paramount force in infiltrating United States

backed neo-liberal capitalism and influencing fellow Latin American

governments to act in a similar way.

In terms of Chavez’s influence upon socialism, it is too early to assume

that Chavez’s brand of charismatic, populist socialism and its counterparts

across Latin America will prove either to remain viable, or to act as the

catalyst of a greater revival of a similar type of socialism globally. The view

that charisma wasn’t integral to Latin American socialism was often held by

some academics before Chavez’s influence in Latin America had been fully

developed. “Charisma is not exactly what it used to be… due to a lack of

quasi-prophetic leaders, widely believed to have a unique, revolutionary,

charismatic genius” (Waisbord, 2003, p. 210) and that Latin American politics

had become “marked by the ebb of messianic attitudes and of great

teleological projects” (Santiso, 2007, p. 202). However, the influence that

Hugo Chavez’s brand of charismatic socialism has had upon the Latin

American region in the past decade suggests otherwise and has caused a

revision of such critical literature. The number of emotional eulogies left for

President Chavez following his death in 2013 is a testament to the positive

affect his leadership had in the region. Alongside Chavez’s influence, the

decline of a Marxist hegemony “across the left has opened up the way to

new approaches to left politics in which charisma and populism are an

intrinsic component of contemporary democratic politics” (March, 2007, p.

74). It is therefore difficult to envisage any other form of socialism

prospering in today’s political arena, where “the system of celebrity power is

progressively being translated from the popular entertainment industries

towards more ‘serious’ fields such as business, politics, art and science”

(Corner and Pels, 2003, p. 8). This developing nature of the political arena in

which more personable politicians are more likely to succeed, especially in

presidential systems where, in most cases, people are voting for an

35

individual, creates an obvious paradigm for a resurgence in charisma-based

politics. Therefore, the importance of charisma, as a commonly utilised tool

to modern day socialism, has been magnified in its importance to the validity

of today’s socialist movements.

Hugo Chavez has certainly become a polarising and important figure within

political discourse, which is in part, down to his charismatic strength in

reaching out to a largely disenfranchised majority of the Venezuelan

population. Whilst in government, he matched this image by dramatically

reducing poverty rates (see Table 1, page 44) as well as overseeing income

inequality being one of the lowest in the region (see Table 2, page 45). He

has successfully legitimised and validated his charismatic authority through

the governmental organisation of popular movements and huge rallies in his

support, as well developing a system that has offered many Venezuelans

ascension both politically and socially, “by extending the mythical hand of

the liberator to lift them up” (Mixon, 2009, p. 207). It remains to be seen

whether his anointed successor, Nicolas Maduro, can continue the work

Chavez started.

36

List of References

Al Jazeera (2012) Ricardo Patino: Ecuador ‘acts on principles’. Retrieved from

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2012/08/2012824161296

48419.html

Azicri, M. (2009) The Castro-Chavez Alliance. Latin American Perspectives. 36,

(1), 99-110

Bartley, K. and O’Briain, D. (Directors) (2003) “The Revolution Will Not Be

Televised”. Dublin, Republic of Ireland: The Irish Film Board. Retrieved from

Breuilly, J. (2011) Max Weber, Charisma and Nationalist Leadership. Nations

and Nationalism. 17, (3), 477-499

British Broadcasting Corporation (2006) Chavez tells UN Bush is ‘devil’. BBC

NEWS. Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5365142.stm

British Broadcasting Corporation (2013) Hugo Chavez: Memorable Moments.

Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20712033

British Broadcasting Corporation (2013) Venezuela: Maduro declared official

poll winner. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-

22160684

Beasley-Murray, J., Cameron, M. and Hershberg, E. (2009) Latin America’s Left

Turns: An Introduction. Third World Quaterly. 30, (2), 319-330

Chavez, H. (2003) Speech at the Urban Land Titling Ceremony, Caracas.

37

January 11th, 2003. The Fascist Coup Against Venezuela: “The Life of the

Homeland is at Stake Here”. Caracas, Venezuela: Ediciones De La Plaza

Clement, C. (2005) Confronting Hugo Chavez: United States “Democracy

Promotion” in Latin America. Latin American Perspectives. 32, (3), 60-78.

Corner, J. and Pels, D. (Eds.) (2003) The Re-styling of Politics, in Corner, J.

and Pels, D. (Eds.), Media and the Restyling of Politics: Consumerism,

Celebrity and Cynicism. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications

Dabove, J. (2011) Hugo Chavez and Maisanta: Orality, Literacy and the

Construction of Legitimacy Outside the Law. Vanderbilt e-Journal of Luso

Hispanic Studies. 7, (1) 1-14

Danopoulos, C. and Sylvia, R. (2010) The Chavez Phenomenon: Political

Change in Venezuela. Third World Quaterly. 24, (1), 63-76

de la Torre, C. (2012) Between authoritarianism and democracy in Latin

America’s re-founding revolutions. In Peruzzotti, E. and Plot, M. (Eds.) Critical

Theory and Democracy: Civil Society, Dictatorship and Constitutionalism in

Andrew Arato’s Democratic Thoery. (pp. 152-169) United Kingdom: Routledge

Dominguez, F. (1999) Chavez: La Revolucion Pacifica Y Democratica. Caracas,

Venezuela: Editorial Panapo

Durac, S. (2011) Leader Personality and Performance in Latin America.

Washington Research Library Consortium

Down Jnr. (1978) An Analysis of Weber’s Work on Charisma, British Journal

of Sociology. 29 (1), 83-93

38

Dugan, C. and Profaizer, J. (2007) Venezuela Launches Next Stage of

Expropriation. Stay Current. Retrieved from

http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/publications/661.pdf

Dyer, R. (2013) Charisma, in Gledhill, C. (Ed.), Stardom: Industry of Desire.

United Kingdom: Routledge

Eisenstadt, S. (Ed.) (1968) Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building.

United States: University of Chicago Press

Gott, R. (2000) In the Shadow of a Liberator: Hugo Chavez and the

Transformation of Venezuela. United States: Verso

Gott, R. (2011) Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. United States:

Verso Books

Hidalgo, M. (2009) Hugo Chavez’s “Petro-socialism”. Journal of Democracy.

20, (2), 77-91

Hoffman, B. (2007) Transitions from Charismatic Rule: Theories of Leadership

Change and Cuba’s Post-Fidel Succession. GIGA Research Programme:

Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems. (Working Paper Number 56)

Humala, O. (2013) Latin America issued condolences for the death of Hugo

Chavez. Quito, Ecuador: El Universo Newspaper.

Kellner, D. (2010) Celebrity diplomacy, spectacle and Barrack Obama.

Celebrity Studies. 1, (1), 121-123.

Kireev, A. (2007) Venezuela. Presidential Election 1998. Electoral Geography

2.0. Retrieved from

39

http://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/v/venezuela/venezuela-

presidential-election-1998.html

Kitzberger, P. (2010) The Media Activism of Latin America’s Leftist

Governments: Does Ideology Matter? GIGA Research Unit: Institute of Latin

American Studies. (Working Paper Number 151)

Kroth, O. (2013) Chavez, Morales, Correa: Latin American Power Trio.

Retrieved from http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/23-01-2012/120306-

Latin_American_power_trio-0/

Kulmun Newswire. (2013) Nicolas Maduro: The Right Man For The Venezuelan

Left? March 18th, 2013. Retrieved from

http://newswire.kulmun.be/practice_edition/nicolas-maduro-the-right-man-for-

the-venezuelan-left/

LaFranci, H. (2000) ‘Simon Says...’ Populist Leader Revives an Icon. Christian

Science Monitor. 92, (217), 1-12

Levin, J. (2007) Hugo Chavez. New York City, United States: Infobase

Publishing

Levitsky, S and Roberts, K. (2011) The Resurgence of the Latin American Left.

United States: John Hopkins University Press.

Luhnow, D. and de Cordoba, J. (2008) Politics and Economics: Castro’s Exit

Puts Chavez on Center Stage; Venezuelan Leader Gets a Bigger Role

March, L. (2007) From Vanguard of the Proletariat to Vox Populi: Left-

populism as a ‘Shadow’ of Contemporary Socialism. SAIS Review. 27, (1), 63-

77

40

Marwick, A. (2011) To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter.

Convergence. 17, (2), 139-158

Meyer, D. (2007) The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social

Movements. Sociological Enquiry. 65, (2), 181-206

Mixon, L. (2009) Use of the Authorising Figure, Authoritarian Charisma and

National Myth in the Discourse of Hugo Chavez: Toward a Critical Model of

Rhetorical Analysis for Political Discourse. United Kingdom: ProQuest

Publishing

Murray, P. (2009) For Glory and Bolivar. Texas, United States: University of

Texas Press.

Nelson, D. (1984) Charisma, Control, and Coercion: The Dilemma of

Communist Leadership. Comparative Politics. 17, (1), 1-15

Price, P. (2009) How Bolivarian is the Bolivarian Revolution: Hugo Chavez and

the Appropriation of History. McNair Scholars Research Journal

Santiso, J. (2007) Latin America’s Political Economy of the Possible: Beyond

Good Revolutionaries and Free Marketeers. Massachusetts, United States: MIT

Press

Shannon, J. (2007) When the Proletariat Becomes the People: Socialism,

Populism and the Politics of Hugo Chavez

Shills, E. (1965) ‘Charisma, Order and Status’, American Sociological Review.

30, 199-213.

41

Street, J. (2003) The Celebrity Politician: Political Style and Popular Culture. In

Corner, J and Pels, D. (Eds.) Media and the Restyling of Politics:

Consumerism, Celebrity and Cynicism. (pp. 85-99)

Szelenyi, I. (2004) Theories of the New Class: Intellectuals and Power. United

States: University of Minnesota Press.

Twitaholic. (2013) The Twitaholic.com Top 500 Twitterholics based on

Followers. Retrieved from http://twitaholic.com/top100/followers/

Ukpere, I. (2007) Is Socialism Actually Dead and Buried? Business Papers and

Reports. 7, (1), 1-7

Walser, R. (2013) Big Shoes to Fill Globally. New York City, United States: The

New York Times.

Weber, M. (1948) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Gerth. H and Mills.

C.W (Eds.) London, United Kingdom: Routledge

Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society. Los Angeles, United States: University

of California Press.

Weber, M. (2009) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. United

States: Simon & Schuster

Weyland, K. (1999) Neoliberal Populism in Latin America and Eastern Europe.

Comparative Politics. 31, (4), 379-401

Weyland, K. (2003) Economic Voting Reconsidered: Crisis and Charisma in the

Election of Hugo Chavez. Comparative Political Studies. 36, (7), 822-848

42

Wilpert, G. (2003) The Economics, Culture and Politics of Oil in Venezuela.

Venezuela Analysis. Retrieved from

http://admin.iocl.com/downloads/EconomyMirror/The_Economics.pdf

Wilpert, G. (2003) “Venezuela’s Mission to Fight Poverty” According to the

income-based poverty line used by the Poverty Project of the Catholic

University Andres Bello (Matias Riutort, “El Costo de Eradicar la Pobreza” in

Un Mal Posible de Superar. Vol. 1, UCAB, 1999)

Zuquete, P. (2008) ‘The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chavez.’ Latin American

Politics and Society. 50, (1), 92-121

43

Appendices

Table 1

The figure below shows the poverty rates for Venezuela from 2003 to

2011. (The Y axis shows the percentage of people living under the

national poverty line. The X axis shows the year. Date is based on

World Bank’s country poverty assessments and country poverty

reduction strategies.)

Source: The World Bank

44

Table 2

The figures below represent the annual income of the richest 20% of

a given country, divided by the income of the poorest 20%. The larger

the figure, the greater the income inequality.

45

Source: U.N Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carribean

Plate 1

This plate illustrates an image of the former leader of the RESPECT

Party, Salma Yaqoob’s viral tweet following Hugo Chavez’s death on

the 5th March 2013.

Source: Twitter: @SalmaYaqoob

46