|
Venezuela Formal and Informal Dynamics of Public Policy
Venezuelan public policies reflected the strong
contrasts
between the goals expounded by practically all major
political
parties and policy actors and the reality of their
implementation. The constitution provides for access of
the
people to the government, principally via elections; but
in its
daily operation those with links to powerful groups, such
as
labor unions and business groups, enjoyed an undeniable
advantage
in influencing policy formulation. These groups therefore
benefited more often and more directly from government
policies.
It was not so much that a limited number of families
controlled the system. Venezuela long ago ceased to be a
rural
society in which a few landowners could pick the president
and
run the country. Rather, through the sophisticated use of
the
system, certain politicians and political groups achieved
a
greater say in policy making. Through their various
branches, the
political parties served as conduits for both policy
demands and
implementation. Thus, when agrarian reform policies
figured
prominently in AD's programs, peasant leagues affiliated
with the
party exercised considerable influence in the formulation
and
implementation of reforms. These groups also benefited
inordinately from these reforms.
This was not to say, however, that certain groups held
exclusive access to government and to policy makers. Under
the
Venezuelan democratic system, various groups participated
in the
overall process. The system was less than totally open,
however,
in that certain groups had greater input in the
policy-making
process, depending on the issues or the status of the
group.
Thus, even in the modern era of civilian governments, the
military would hold veto power in certain policy areas,
such as
border control or the pursuit of terrorists
(see Role of the Military in National Life
, ch. 5). In the formulation of
economic
policy, both the major labor unions and the major business
groups
affected would be heard at the highest levels of
government,
where compromises and deals were struck and the political
parties
and leaders would attempt to preserve their influence
among
competing constituencies.
The caution and political moderation resulting from the
trienio and the harsh decade of dictatorship that
followed
served as a backdrop to the dynamics of policy-making in
Venezuela. The high hopes and radical reforms of the
trienio came to naught because too many groups felt
threatened; the memory of that period served to deter
political
actors from pushing too far in one or another public
policy area.
Both AD and COPEI reinforced this moderating influence by
according each other a certain level of participation in
policymaking and policy implementation.
Data as of December 1990
|
