Chávez’s Institutionality

Understanding a legacy requires thinking about events in the past in relation to the present, while remaining within the present.There is an inherent risk of presentism (Hartog, 2016) and given the current intensification of US pressure upon the Venezuelan government, one must be especially careful.It is also worth noting that a definitive singular legacy of Hugo Chávez is unlikely to be written and different authors and generations are likely to contribute in different ways (see, for example, Hellinger and Spanakos, 2017).Ellner's evaluation of Chávez's of radicalization over his 14 years as president (with some discussion prior to 1999) comes at a time when his successor, Nicolás Maduro had been in office for over 12 years.For decades, Steve Ellner has been one of the most prolific and thoughtful analysts of Leftist politics in Latin America and Venezuelan politics in particular.As with his work over the years, including in Latin American Perspectives, this article identifies a number of different readings of Hugo Chávez in relation to the question of radical politics and offers an empirically driven response.In contrast with perspectives generated within Chavista and opposition discourse, which spans from far left to right, Ellner's argues Chávez was both "an idealist and a pragmatist."His thesis is clear: "Chávez pursued far-reaching change through sustained struggle and pragmatic flexibility, while continually redefining objectives."This explains why he articulated and pursued, with considerable ambiguity and inconsistency, popular politics that tended toward radicalization, with elements that were more nationalist, populist, and socialist at different times and in different domains.As Ellner shows, this explains Chávez's pedal to the medal radical moves and episodic efforts at reconciliation, collaboration with different sectors with diverse interests both within and outside his formal coalition.He could be a sell-out, radical, ideologue, enabler, and pragmatist, all during one entertaining but still several hour aló presidente (his genre-defying television program).Ellner's analysis is correct.So what can be added?Ellner cites Chávez's citation of Simón Rodriguez "[w]e either invent or err" with good reason.Chávez was an aphorism-driven thinker, with a tendency towards depth but not systematicity.Chávez treated experiment as a metapolitical foundation of politics and one cannot understand Chávez, the inordinate number of projects he launched, the high fail rate of many, the lack of sustained interest in reducing corruption and inefficiency, among a host of other governance related issues, without keeping this in mind.Chávez had a rather unusual understanding of institutionality when compared with most 1495923L APXXX10.1177/0094582X261495923LATINAMERICAN PERSPECTIVESSpanakos / Chávez's Institutionality research-article2026