What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common

March 31, 2016
Venezuela's acting President and presidential candidate Nicolas Maduro kisses a painting of late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez during a campaign rally in the state of Vargas April 9, 2013. Venezuelans will hold presidential elections on April 14. Maduro promised on Tuesday to hike Venezuela's minimum wage by about 40 percent if he is elected in a weekend vote to replace late socialist leader Chavez. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins (VENEZUELA - Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS OBITUARY) - RTXYFMI

Venezuela’s acting President and presidential candidate Nicolas Maduro kisses a painting of late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez during a campaign rally in the state of Vargas April 9, 2013. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

What do a small-town paratrooper from Venezuela and a billionaire real estate mogul from New York have in common? Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump are both outsized personalities seeing themselves as the sole leaders capable of restoring their countries to greatness. They eschew political correctness and routinely speak in an informal, unscripted style, connecting directly with voters who have felt invisible. They are both polarizing populists and 17 years of Chavista government in Venezuela may provide a cautionary tale to the United States.

Political scientists use the term “populist” to refer to political discourse that emphasizes “us vs. them” in moral terms of good and evil. Most often it is the “evil” elites conspiring against the “good” people, a narrative Chávez emphasized in Venezuela and Bernie Sanders uses in blaming Wall Street. It can also pit citizens against foreigners, as seen in the resurgent xenophobic trends of Europe and the giant wall proposed by Trump to keep Mexicans out of the United States.

The consequences of polarizing populism can be pernicious. Political polarization often creates government gridlock as politicians refuse to negotiate and compromise. Societal polarization tends to make citizens less tolerant, less empathetic, and less willing to share neighborhoods and resources with people who think differently.

Populist politicians use polarizing rhetoric as an electoral strategy — stoking the fears and resentments of anxious voters to increase turnout in their favor. By labeling adversaries as enemies to be conquered or eliminated, populists may be perceived by overzealous supporters to be giving permission to engage in violence. They justify bypassing other branches of power by appealing to their popular mandates to rapidly and efficiently “fix the problems” and counter the elites threatening their country.

Both Chávez and Trump favor attention-grabbing divisive rhetoric and an apparent disregard for public institutions and laws. Chávez was elected president of Venezuela in 1998 as the outsider in the wake of an economic decline. A rising middle class was sliding backward and poverty rates rose from 25 percent to 65 percent between the 1970s and the 1990s. This severe social dislocation generated contempt for the traditional two-party political system that had alternated power since the 1960s.

Despite having led an abortive coup against the elected president six years earlier, Chávez campaigned on a platform of wresting control of Venezuelan democracy from a corrupt elite and returning it to the people. He promised constitutional change and a vaguely-defined revolution to restore the “birthright” of this oil-producing nation’s petro-revenues to the masses, without specific policy proposals to deal with the lowest oil prices in two decades and a huge national debt.

Trump burst on the U.S. political scene as a well-known bombastic billionaire and celebrity at a moment similarly ripe for outsiders. Eight years after a devastating recession and a decades-long trend of deepening income inequality and social immobility, a significant sector of the population remained resentful and angry at their inability to benefit from the economic recovery. They were receptive to Trump’s assignation of blame for the loss of jobs — on the Chinese, the Mexicans, and immigrants in general. Just as Chávez found an easy scapegoat in the United States and its Venezuelan “lackeys” for the ills facing Venezuela, Trump blames the politicians, as he did in his campaign launch speech: “They will never make America great again. They don’t even have a chance. They are controlled fully, they are controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors and by the special interests.”

Chávez governed Venezuela for 15 years, until his death in 2013, utilizing these populist strategies. He pursued radical change through confrontation, concentrated power in his persona, eliminated rivals, and repressed dissent along the way. His legacy is a country facing paralyzing gridlock between a fractured governing party and a bickering opposition. Its oil-dependent economy is in shambles, and the system of checks and balances has eroded. The economy continues to slide downhill while the opposition strives to unseat the president. Hyperinflation has left many with little, and the nation’s record-breaking homicide rate goes unaddressed.

Trump dismisses national and international law when he contemplates waterboarding and other forms of torture. He disparages his opponents as “losers” and “stupid,” inviting his supporters to similarly eschew civility and respect for others. He discredits expertise in politics and evidence-based policymaking when he makes up facts and proclaims himself his own best advisor.

Political outsiders like Chávez and Trump rise to power when political insiders are perceived as failing to listen and give voice to their own constituents. Populists can help spur a much-needed shake-up of complacent parties, prone to perpetuating electoral rules such as campaign finance and gerrymandering to keep themselves in power. But when voters give such messianic leaders unchecked political power to ride roughshod over institutional checks and balances and undermine basic civility and respect for individual rights, they run the risk of ushering in a dangerous concentration of power subject to the whims of a single egocentric leader.

4 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

In your article, you incorrectly state that Trump wamts to build a wall to ” to keep Mexicans out of the United States”, this is inaccurate, the wall is to stop illegal immigration. Trump want s to build a “Big Beautiful Door” in that wall to allow legal immigration.
Oh, and another thing Chavez and Trump have in common: they both love their mother, and breathe air.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t use “polarizing rhetoric as an electoral strategy”, come on Jennifer.

Posted by MikeMiles | Report as abusive

PLEASE DO NOT CRITICIZE, any more we need some one who help and fix those terrorist people and help America for more work. Never before i see that much criticize to a partidist, open the eges to Hillary Clinton be in the power for 8 years with her husband and 8 years with Obama and didn’t make any thing yes put the country in dangerous.

Posted by nelida | Report as abusive

There is one main difference. Hugo Chavez actually served in the military. He did not request 5 draft deferments during his war.

Trump will never be president. He’s a loser.

Posted by Solidar | Report as abusive

This is a poor comparison. One individual was democratically elected. The other one has not been elected. Taking those two factors into consideration disqualifies any type of comparison.

Posted by AdiMujagic | Report as abusive