In Venezuela, there has long been a habit of blaming the state for all the country’s troubles. But the problem runs deeper: many private institutions—professional associations, trade chambers, unions, opposition parties, and even non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—copy the same flaws as the authorities. Their leaders remain in place without change, elections are held only in form, staff and ideas are hardly ever renewed, and the organizations often serve merely as tools to obtain privileges and personal connections with the very politicians they criticize. This situation is not unique to Venezuela, but here it has become systemic.
The roots of this problem go back long before Hugo Chávez came to power. Even in the era of the two traditional parties—Acción Democrática and COPEI—universities, professional guilds, and trade unions operated on the principle of loyalty rather than merit. New ideas and fresh voices were suppressed, and institutions turned into “tribes,” where personal devotion mattered more than democratic values. Chavismo deepened this culture, making it nearly irreversible. That is why, before criticizing the government, it is worth looking inside one’s own organizations.
Today Venezuela has a real window of opportunity: the country has strategic resources, attracts the interest of investors, benefits from support from the Trump administration, and has qualified personnel. To seize this chance, it is not enough to demand reforms from the state—you also need to change yourselves. Opposition groups and every private institution should create formal channels to receive proposals from citizens and respond to them, and the government should open similar windows in every ministry. Only then can opposition turn from a voice of criticism into real infrastructure for supporting society.
The example of the United States shows how healthy institutions work: there, universities, guilds, and civic organizations respect, fund, and promote the best ideas regardless of their source. Social mobility becomes possible thanks to rules that most people follow. If Venezuela wants to attract investment and rebuild the world’s trust, it will have to give up caudillismo and clannishness within its own structures. Respect begins at home—with open, merit-based, value-driven institutions.
Comments on the news
What do the traditional parties Acción Democrática (AD) and COPEI represent, and what role did they play in shaping Venezuela’s institutional culture before Chávez? – AD (a left-leaning centrist party) and COPEI (a right-leaning centrist party) were the two dominant parties under the so-called “Puntofijo” system (1958–1998). After the fall of the dictatorship, they entered into the Punto Fijo Pact, which entrenched a two-party monopoly and excluded other forces. This led to the formation of an institutional culture based on clientelism, corruption, and the use of state resources to strengthen party power. The parties controlled trade unions, business associations, and the courts, creating a patronage system that crushed independent institutions and undermined trust in democracy. By the time Hugo Chávez arrived in 1998, these parties had discredited themselves through their inability to solve social problems and their deep corruption.
What does the term “caudillismo” mean in the Venezuelan context, and how does it show up in private institutions—professional associations, trade chambers, and unions? – Caudillismo is a form of personalized leadership in which authority rests on the charisma of a specific “caudillo” (leader), rather than on formal procedures or laws. In Venezuela, this tradition dates back to the 19th century and survived even after the transition to democracy. In private institutions (bar associations, engineering associations, trade chambers, and unions), caudillismo manifests as leadership concentrating power in its own hands, using organizations for personal enrichment or political influence, and elections turning into a formality where the incumbent leader’s appointees win. This undermines internal democracy, leads to stagnation and corruption, because institutions become tools of a narrow group rather than serving the interests of their members.
Full version: El Estado no es el único fallido