Venezuela: The Life and Times of the Party System - Political ...

sought to foster greater quality and rationality in the electoral process, particularly as regards the
regulation of campaigns and their financing. 1 Several proposed reforms are directed specifically
at the electoral system. At the time of writing, the Venezuelan Congress was discussing the
possible reform of the Ley de Partidos Políticos, Reuniones Públicas y Manifestaciones of 1965
(Venezuelan Senate, 1990).
Current reform measures date from the mid-1980s. On December 17, 1984, then
President Jaime Lusinchi issued a decree creating the Presidential Commission on the Reform of
the State (COPRE). COPRE was charged with preparing a blueprint for a far-reaching “overall
reform of the state,” as well as with proposing immediate and specific steps that would facilitate
such reforms. Part of COPRE’s activities were directed at the study and promotion of political
reforms. Pointing to “the shortfall in the complexity of political institutions” (COPRE 1989, 101-
18), COPRE stated that the complexity of the mechanisms and options of the electoral system
should be matched by the degree of complexity attained by Venezuelan society. In the view of
the Commission, it was time for institutional change in order to enhance representation and
participation. COPRE has since been joined by various sectors and personalities in criticizing the
current electoral system. 2 Criticisms ranged from those focusing on superficial and procedural
aspects of the system, to proposals that challenged the basic principles of the existing electoral
system (Rey 1986, 13-15).
One of the most controversial aspects of the public debate on electoral reform was the
possibility of introducing the use of names on the ballot, the so-called personalización of voting. 3
Proposals of this kind were often put forth by individuals or factions with slim chances of gaining
seats under the existing model of closed party lists (see El Nacional 1990 and COPRE’s
response 1990). Party leaders have found it extremely difficult to respond to the barrage of
criticism with an articulate and convincing defense of the principles and procedures under which
the country has long operated. 4
Another controversial feature of the system of representation is the extent to which
popular votes are accurately reflected in the distribution of public offices. Although barriers to
representation are relatively low in Venezuela, it is of course true that any system of voting and
distribution of public offices contains some element of distortion. For example, the d’Hondt
1 See Rey (1986, 142). See also the anexo of this same article, entitled “Sobre la
democratización de los partidos políticos.”
2 See, among other sources: Rausseo (1981); Rey (1986); Brewer-Carias, (1987); Molina
(1986 and 1991a); and Torres (1986).
3 One-fifth of all media coverage of electoral reforms in 1988 referred to this issue, with a
majority of stories (57.3 percent) expressing support for preference voting. See CSE (1990a).
4 As Franklin Guzmán has pointed out, this has occurred to such a point that in the debate on
electoral reform, “we saw two paradoxes: party politicians embarrassed about their profession
and proposals for electoral reform that spoke of uninominalidad but with an added PR bonus”
(Guzman 1989).