Under Chavez, Venezuela became a society fiercely divided between Chavez supporters and his opponents. This political divide extended into citizens’ access to public services, government jobs, and many of Chavez’s popular social programs. This conflict played out in the election and will continue to be a defining feature of Venezuelan politics and society in the years to come. Chavez was a charismatic, personal leader who is revered by many Venezuelans because of his social programs and political inclusion of the poor. His supporters will remember him and uphold his legacy for years to come, possibly carving out a party like the Peronist party in Argentina which remains a party centered on the legacy of former populist president Juan Peron.

However, his opponents will remember his vitriolic attitude towards the opposition and overt manipulation of government resources. Venezuela is also facing economic troubles. The nation’s economy is based on its production of oil. However, oil prices have been falling from their mid-2000s highs along with Venezuela’s yearly production of oil, setting up a troubling paradox of Venezuelan dependence on oil. President-elect Maduro will have to deal with the economic pitfalls of a weakened oil sector and undeveloped alternative industries. Mixed with the newly fortified opposition, Venezuela has a long road ahead, and one only hopes that it will navigate it carefully.

Valentina Perez ’15 is a social studies concentrator in Mather House. She is on the board of Fuerza Latina.

Don’t Expect Miracles from Venezuela

Following the death of Hugo Chávez, some commentators believed that there might have been a thaw in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. Tensions between the two countries, after all, had mostly resulted from rhetorical battles between Chávez and American leaders, and chances seemed good for a more moderate president in Caracas.

Unfortunately, however, all of that hope came to naught, and Chávez’s hand-picked successor, newly elected President Nicholás Maduro, has made a show of maintaining—or even increasing—his predecessor’s level of anti-American rhetoric. Our own government in Washington, meanwhile, has indicated that it is unwilling to compromise with what it sees as a continuation of the former government.

That being said, the most likely future for U.S.-Venezuelan relations is not a détente of sorts, but rather, further bitterness and impasse. The primary reason for this is that Maduro won his election in the first place. Maduro can claim that the Venezuelan people have overwhelmingly endorsed the ideals of the former government, which include anti-American rhetoric, unfriendly economic policies, and close relations with nations such as Cuba and Iran. With his victory as evidence, he can claim that his people had not simply tolerated these policies because they had so admired Chávez. Instead, he can claim a mandate to continue.

Furthermore, Maduro’s government has received unprecedented support from Latin American nations. While Chávez’s government traditionally relied on smaller nations such as Cuba and Nicaragua to support it economically and politically, the Maduro government has already received official affirmations of support from regional powerhouses such as Argentina, Peru, and Brazil. With this kind of support, Venezuela can confidently work to diminish American power in the region in unprecedented ways.

Basically, a post-Chávez Venezuela does not mean a friendlier Venezuela. If the United States wants to see more amicable relations with the South American side, the government in Washington is going to have to put forth all the effort.

John Griffin ’16, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Stoughton Hall.