Georgia Institute of Technology

How Pacted Democracies Effected the Political

Landscape of Venezuela vs. Colombia:

An In Depth Look at How a Country’s History Decided It’s Future

Joel Joseph

INTA 3241

Dr. Kirk Bowman

5 December 2015Joel Joseph

Dr. Kirk Bowman

Joseph 1

INTA 3241

05 December 2014

How Pacted Democracies Effected the Political Landscape of Venezuela vs. Colombia

Colombia and Venezuela are two countries that happen to have a lot in common. They

share a border, they speak the same language, they share a colonial history, they share a similar

culture, and they even share a similar climate. The focus of this paper will be about another thing

that they share, a history of being governed by a Pacted Democracy. Both Colombia and

Venezuela put into effect a Pacted Democracy in 1958 to quell rising violence and political

unrest in their respective countries. This paper will begin by presenting a brief history of the

governments that ruled over both Colombia and Venezuela, from the colonial period, leading up

to the formation of a Pacted Democracy in Colombia and Venezuela. This paper will analyze the

exact reasons and actions that led to the formation of the Pacted Democracy in both Colombia

and Venezuela and it will then go on to present the outcomes of having a Pacted Democracy in

both countries. In conclusion, the argument will be made that the early political history of each

country was the main influence on the fall of Pacted Democracies in both countries (Index

Mundi).

The foundation for the Colombia and Venezuela that we know today began in 1492 with

the discovery of Latin America by Christopher Columbus; followed by the settlement of Latin

America by Spain. This changed the course of history for the regions of present day Colombia

and Venezuela in more ways that we can count. The areas of present day Colombia and

Venezuela were initially colonized in 1514 and consolidated under the New Kingdom of

Granada in 1549, which was a captaincy general that reported to the Viceroyalty of Peru

headquartered in Lima. Upon realization that communication between Bogota, the capital of the

Joseph 2

New Kingdom of Granada, and Lima, the capital of the Viceroyalty of Peru, was quite difficult,

the Viceroyalty of New Grenada was established in May of 1717. This was the political power

that oversaw the area until the region gained its independence from Spain between 1819 and

1822 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Colombia”).

Upon the eradication of Spanish rule, the region came together, under the leadership of

their liberator Simon Bolivar, to form a country called Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia

encompassed a region that included parts of present day Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela,

Panama, western Guyana, and northern Brazil. Unlike the Viceroyalty, the political leadership

under Gran Colombia was a democracy; this marked the first time this region was ruled by a

democracy. Gran Colombia drafted its constitution in 1821 and set itself up as a “centralized

representative republic with its capital at Bogotá.” This was important because this set a

foundation for democratic beginnings in both Colombia and Venezuela for years to come.

Although it made a noble effort, Gran Colombia was not able to stay together for long. Personal

and political rivalries led to much unrest in the newfound country. Rebellions began in

Venezuela in 1826 and by 1830, Venezuela, Ecuador, and the rest of the countries had left Gran

Colombia (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Colombia”).

The formation of Colombia, which included present day Panama, took place upon the

death of Simon Bolivar and the breakup of Gran Colombia. From early on, two rival political

factions formed in Colombia. On one side were the Conservatives, and on the other the Liberals.

The Conservatives and Liberals argued over many points; some of the more important ones

included the separation of church and state, as well as having a more centralist or federalist

government. In the words of Don Apolinar Moscote, from the book 100 Years of Solitude by

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Liberals, “he said, were Freemasons, bad people, wanting to hang

Joseph 3

priests, to institute civil marriage and divorce, to recognize the rights of illegitimate children as

equal to those of legitimate ones, and to cut the country up into a federal system that would take

power away from the supreme authority. The Conservatives, on the other hand, who had

received their power directly from God, proposed the establishment of public order and family

morality. They were the defenders of the faith of Christ, of the principle of authority, and were

not prepared to permit the country to be broken down into autonomous entities.” The arguments

between the Conservatives and Liberals often degenerated into violence. Small civil wars broke

out in the country every few years, with no side gaining any real advantage or favor resulting

from the fighting. One major period of fighting was called the Epoch of Civil Wars where: “In

51 of the 240 months that passed in the 1860s and ‘70s, there was some form of civil conflict

taking pace within the army.” Strong political ideologies and a lack of compromise, coupled with

a weak Colombian military, led to a country which could not maintain public order

(Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Colombia”).

There were often stark differences when it came to the geographical backgrounds of the

people who identified themselves as Conservatives vs. Liberals. A prime example of this can be

taken from the book 100 Years of Solitude. The primary Conservative in the book was someone

who grew up wealthy in a major city, Don Apolinar Moscote. On the other hand, most of the

Liberals in the book were people who were born and raised in the remote village of Maconodo.

This is a good parallel for what happened in real life. Most Conservatives came from wealth,

were educated, and were from politically powerful areas. Liberals, on the other hand, were often

from the countryside and other rural and remote areas.

The biggest and most violent period of Civil Wars in the country’s history took place

between 1899 and 1903 in the War of a Thousand Days which accounted for between sixty

Joseph 4

thousand and one hundred and thirty thousand deaths in Colombia. This Conservative party was

in power during this time and continued to hold power for the next couple of decades. However,

economic struggles in Colombia induced by the Great Depression, as well as conservative

support for the use of force against union workers, led to growing discontent with the

Conservative party and eventually led to the Liberals coming into power in 1930. The Liberals

held power in Colombia for the next 15 years. During this period, supporters of the Liberals

performed a series of violent attacks on Conservatives. When Conservatives regained power in

1946, they started looking for retribution and this marked the beginning of a period known as

“La Violencia”. It was kicked off by a series of riots in Bogotá resulting from the assassination

of a Liberal leader; this incident was known as the “Bogotazo”. “La Violencia” divided the

citizens of Colombia purely along the lines of politics. There were rich and poor, as well as

people of all races on both sides of the conflict. This bloody period of Colombia’s history lasted

for eighteen years and during this period there were both Conservatives and Liberals who

assumed the presidency. A major effort was put forth in 1953 when a populist leader, General

Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, assumed the presidency. However, his inability to quell the violence,

follow through with his promises, and a collapse in the economy led to him being ousted by a

military junta. An estimated two hundred thousand lives were lost over the course of “La

Violencia”, which did not see any sign of things coming to an end until 1957 (Encyclopedia

Britannica Online, “Colombia”).

1957 was the year that Liberal leader Alberto Lleras Camargo and Conservative leader

Laureano Gomez came together to form a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals. In the

Declaration of Sitges publishes that year, this coalition established “El Frente Nacional” or The

National Front. This was the setup for a sharing of power between the Conservatives and

Joseph 5

Liberals. The National Front declared that, for the next 16 years, the Conservatives and Liberals

would alternate the presidency between themselves every four years. Along with that they agreed

to split all government and ministerial positions evenly among themselves. This was the

establishment of a Pacted Democracy in Colombia (Gutierrez et al.).

The National Front was three things rolled into one. It created the means for a peaceful

democratic transition, it was a peace and power sharing pact, and lastly it was a developmental

plan. Some of the biggest aims of The National Front included bringing back the rights and

freedoms associated with democracy such as freedom of speech and press, enacting social

reforms, improving the economy, and eradicating the inequality found throughout Colombia. The

thinking was by limiting competition to two parties and bringing stability to the political

landscape of the country, it would make it easier for the government to accomplish its goals and

help the country. Other parties such as the Radicals and Communists were excluded from The

National Front, and all elected and appointed officials had to declare their affiliation to one of the

two major parties before assuming office. The National Front wanted the Liberal and

Conservative parties to become invested in each other; it wanted to “foster a strong collaboration

between the parties, creating common interests and making rupture too costly (Gutierrez et al.).”

When it came to quelling violence in the country, The National Front was quite effective.

There were quite a few militant, rebel groups spread out throughout the country, such as the

FARC, that did not accept the rule of The National Front. There were also radical members of

the Conservative and Liberal parties that did not quite see eye to eye with the rest of the party

that tried to stir up violence as well. However, the National Front was able to contain these

groups to their small pockets of operation, and smother their growth. Along with this, homicides

related to political reasons reached a new low during this period. Economically, The National

Joseph 6

Front was only somewhat of a success. The period of the National Front saw a substantial

decrease in the national deficit. At the same time, inflation rose 26 percent. This rate was lower

than the inflation rate of the rest of Latin America however (Gutierrez et al.).

Unfortunately there was still a lot of discontent with the National Front, especially with

the younger generations, and the discontent only increased as time went on. One of the major

issues was that the National Front excluded all other parties from participating which led to voter

apathy. Power sharing between the two parties became very tight, and collaboration between the

two parties allowed them to do whatever they wanted to do. At the same time, factionalism

within both parties, as well as the need to get a supermajority (60 percent) of the vote to pass

new legislation, made for slow progress on the reformist agenda. The National Front went out

with more of a whimper than a bang, as stagnation from within and growing opposition from

outside left no possibility for the continuation of The National Front after the originally agreed

upon sixteen year period of The National Front came to an end (Gutierrez et al.).

Venezuela on the other hand lapsed into a century of rule by different military dictators

upon the breakup of Gran Colombia in 1830. Each of these dictators or “caudillos” seized power

backed by personal armies. The first of these caudillos was conservative leader, appointed by

Simòn Bolívar himself, was conservative leader José Antonio Páez. José Antonio Páez was a

major political force in Venezuela between 1830 and 1848, serving as president for two non-

consecutive terms (1831-35 and 1839-43) as well as playing an active role in Venezuelan politics

during his breaks when he held no major position. Under his leadership, Venezuela instituted a

constitution in 1830 that “reflected their social and political philosophy—a centralist state,

property qualifications for voting, the death penalty for political crimes, guarantees for the

freedom of trade and commerce, and the continuation of slavery. The church lost its tax

Joseph 7

immunity and its educational monopoly, and the army was shorn of its autonomy; thus, state

supremacy was achieved.” Unlike the rest of the one hundred year period between 1830 and

1935, the eighteen year period where Páez was in charge was a time of “political stability,

economic progress, and responsible administration (Encyclopedia Britannica Online,

Venezuela).”

Although Conservatives had a firm grip on the country between 1830 and 1848, growing

discontent led to the formation of an opposing Liberal party under the leadership of Antonio

Leocadio Guzmán. Economic difficulties in the 1840s brought tensions between Conservatives

and Liberals to the national forefront under the rule of General José Tadeo Monagas. He was

originally elected to the presidency as a Conservative, but by 1848 he found himself ruling like a

Liberal. He succeeded in forcing Páez into exile and passed a lot of reforms on the Liberal

agenda over the next ten years (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Venezuela).

Liberals argued for protection of the lower classes who worked under the elites, the

expansion of suffrage, as well as the abolition of slavery. Monagas and his brother General José

Gregorio Monagas held the presidency for the next ten years but were eventually ousted and this

led to “five years of revolutionary turmoil” between the Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberals

finally won out in 1863 and enacted a new constitution that codified into law federalist

principles. However irresponsible rule under the hands of Liberal president led to a Conservative

takeover. The Conservative takeover then sparked another civil war which saw Liberal General

Antonio Guzmàn Blanco assume leadership of Venezuela in 1870 (Encyclopedia Britannica

Online, Venezuela).

Blanco enacted a new constitution in 1872 which extended suffrage and solidified direct

election of the presidency among other things. He took control of Venezuela, enacted economic

Joseph 8

reform that brought prosperity to the country, promoted state support for education, and

solidified the boundary between church and state. Blanco ran the country either directly or under

tha rule of a “puppet successor” until 1888 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Venezuela).

Between the years of 1899 and 1958 a series of rulers, known as the Andinos, from the

Andean state of Táchira ruled Venezuela; they siezed power with a personal army from their

region. During this period, political instability was a constant factor that threatened the

leadership. This period was marked by political uprisings by opposing parties, squabbles with

European powers, and the discovery of oil in Venezuela. Venezuela soon became the world’s

largest exporter of oil and it brought great wealth to the country, although it wasn’t distributed

evenly. The end of Andino rule signified the end of an era of military rule and ushered in a new

era for democracy in Venezuela. Similar to Colombia, a form of a pacted democracy was

instituted between three parties was instituted in Venezuela in 1958 known as the Puntofijo

System (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Venezuela).

The ensuing struggle for political control eventually led to the formation of different

political parties, which led to elections being called to decide between them. Some of the bigger

parties in the system (excluding the Communist Party) who wanted to limit the involvement of

another party, Acciòn Democràtica, came together and signed two treaties before the first

elections took place: the Pact of Punto Fijo, and the Decleration of Principles of Minimum

Government Involvement. These pacts “bound all signatories to the same basic political and

economic program, regardless of electoral outcome.” These pacts made deals with the military to

grant them amnesty in return for a guarantee to be apolitical and abstain from intervening in

political affairs. They made unofficial deals with the church as well, allowing the church more

freedom and giving it more donations. The biggest tenant of the two Pacts was the parties

Joseph 9

involved would guarantee “that all parties would respect the electoral process and share power in

a manner consistent with voting results… This truce, although not involving explicit quotas of

power, required the formation of coalitions and an equitable distribution of benefits from the

state.” In the government the president had the job of negotiating between the parties, as well as

being in control of many things such as being in charge of the armed forces, being in charge of

all governmental appointments, among many other things. The congress on the other hand,

although open for free elections, had its powers and resources limited in order to avoid having

parties with majorities making too many changes to the country. “In essence, the overall rules of

production were predetermined prior to national debate while future partisan conflict was

confined to a weak congress. This alliance that was formed in was able to function peacefully in

large part due to the oil money that provided a majority of funds to the government (Karl).

All parties involved in this pact were given important ministries and positions so that they

could have an influence on the political landscape early on to help ensure the relevance and

growth of all parties. One big drawback to this system was that there was a constant need for

pacts to be made in order to get any sort of legislation passed; when there are so many actors

present in the process, compromises needed to be made. However, the sheer number of

compromises that were made, led to ineffective legislation being passed (Karl).

Governing Venezuela under the Puntofijo system became harder in the latter half of the

lifespan of the system because of drops in oil revenue and a subsequent bust in the economy.

Venezuela was truly a banana republic during those times (and some might say still is), with oil

replacing bananas. Troubles in the economy led to austerity measures to be implemented in 1989

which subsequently led to riots breaking out across the country, and ramifications of this led to

small protests and strikes taking place sporadically over the next two years. During second term

Joseph 10

of President Carlos Andrés Pérez, there were two military coup attempts on the presidency, one

of which was led by future president Hugo Chávez, who was thrown in jail for his role. By 1998,

half of Venezuela lived below the poverty line, while at the same time inflation was rampant and

oil was not bringing in enough revenue. Hugo Chávez was released from prison in time for the

1998 elections; his grand promises to rewrite the constitution and bridge inequality led to his

victory in those elections. Hugo Chávez was a very charismatic, populist, and influential leader

who eventually managed to make Venezuela more or less a dictatorship under him until his death

in 2013 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Venezuela).

Straight off the bat, you can see some stark differences between The National Front and

the Puntofijo System. The National Front was a very strict and planned out treaty between two

parties. All the positions in the country were split right down the middle, and the political system

was very non-inclusive. This was actually very reflective of Colombia’s political history, which

always pitted the Conservatives against the Liberals, and most of the civil wars that took place

were between the Conservatives and the Liberals. However the lack of political choice, and the

inability to get legislation passed due the need for supermajorites, led to The National Front

falling out of favor. Contrast this with Venezuela. Venezuela’s political history always had

different political rulers coming in and taking power with the support of their private armies.

These military rulers had a wide range of political backgrounds and as an analogue there were a

wide range of political parties in Venezuela who represent different regions and ideas. When it

came time to create Venezuela’s Pacted Democracy, there were many parties that had to be

included because they had substantial political influence in the country. In Venezuela, all the

parties having influence lead to ineffective legislation being passed due to the amount of

Joseph 11

compromises that were made. This eventually led to the Puntofijo System falling out of favor in

Venezuela similar to what happened in Colombia.

In both Colombia and Venezuela, historical factors defined the specific type of Pacted

Democracy that formed in each country. However, these historical factors also decided what

flaws would be incorporated into these Pacted Democracies; the same flaws that eventually led

to the downfall of Pacted Democracies in both countries.

Works Cited

Joseph 12

"Colombia." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.

"Colombia vs. Venezuela." Index Mundi. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.

Gutierrez, Sanin, Francisco, and Juan Carlos Guataqui. 2009. ‘‘The Colombian Case: Peace-

Making and Power Sharing: The National Front (1958-1974) and New Constitution

(1991-2002) Experiences.’’ Mimeo presented at the World Bank Post-Conflict

Transitions research dissemination conference, December 9–11, 2009

Karl, Terry Lynn. "Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Transition To Democracy In

Venezuela." Latin American Research Review 22.1 (1987): 63-94. Historical Abstracts.

Web. 4 Nov. 2014

Márquez, Gabriel García, and Gregory Rabassa. One Hundred Years of Solitude. New York:

HarperCollins, 2003. Print.

"Venezuela." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 05 Dec.

2014.