How the opposition movement defies authoritarian leaders

According to new research by Notre Dame political scientist Laura Gamboa, Venezuela’s transition from the most stable democracies in Latin America to a full-scale authoritarian regime provides an important lesson for the opposition movement.

In a country now manipulated, political opposition incarcerated and fundamental rights, the opposition’s recent election challenge to President Nicholas Maduro shows that resistance may exist even under severe repression.

“No one expects elections in Venezuela,” Gamboa said. His analysis appears in the special issue of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences Chronicle. “The opposition competes, even if their competitiveness is reduced, although the chances of winning are small.

Gamboa’s research began through three different stages from the 1998 elections by Hugo Chávez, a 25-year descendant of Venezuela, who subsequently took the move to rewrite the constitution. What makes the Venezuela case particularly illuminating is how the opposition’s strategic choices (sometimes misconceptions) lower or slow down the key points of the reversed democratic movement.

Perhaps the most resulted error occurred earlier. Although important institutional power was retained after Chávez’s initial power grab in 1999, the opposition chose a radical approach rather than working within the system.

“Using strategies like coups, boycotts or strikes can be an effective way to protest the government, but when you exploit them compared to popular and democratically elected presidents, they can backfire.”

The coup attempt in 2002 and the oil strike in 2003 proved expensive. Rather than forcing Chávez to power, these moves gave him reason to remove the military leadership, oppose his fire oil manager and consolidate control over the main institutions.

“The Venezuela case provides several lessons for countries that are just beginning to erode,” Gamboa stressed. “This shows that you should use all the institutional spaces in all the institutional spaces you have. It is a mistake not to use these spaces.”

By 2006, Venezuela had transformed into what political scientists call a “competitive autocratic” regime that continues to conduct elections under increasingly unfair conditions. However, as the space for democracy shrinks, the opposition eventually adopted more institutional strategies, forming the Mesa deunidad declivática coalition, which won an impressive victory in the 2015 legislative elections.

Maduro’s response – a legislature deprived of power – another cycle in dictatorship: When the institutional resistance succeeds, the dictator simply changes the rules, forcing the opposition to adapt again.

The climax of the long struggle took place dramatically in July 2024, when opposition candidate Edmundogonzález appeared to beat Maduro despite being severely restricted. Although Maduro refused to admit himself and declared himself the winner, opposition leader María Corina Machado announced that more than 70% of the polling stations showed that González received 3.5 million votes.

“From these successes, we can see that when you use an institution, there can be good returns,” Gamboa notes.

Gamboa’s analysis also reveals how Venezuela’s opposition movement often shifts between electoral strategies and street demonstrations in a mode that weakens effectiveness. Protests usually follow election defeat or boycott rather than coordinate protests in support of the election campaign.

In 2024, things changed when Maduro’s apparent election fraud sparked widespread demonstrations. The Venezuelan opposition appears to link electoral participation with street mobilization for the first time, although Gamboa noted that they have been working to protect supporters of poorer communities facing the toughest repression of the government.

“If the opposition chooses to leverage institutional and non-institutional strategies and use them together, that may be even stronger,” she said.

Venezuela’s insights arrive as democracies face unprecedented pressure. For opposition movements in places where democratic institutions are undermined, Gamboa’s research provides both warnings and hopeful reasons.

“In the past two decades, we have seen a significant decline in global democracy,” she said. “Democratic countries have eroded the authoritarian regime and the weak authoritarian numbers of the former have become more entrenched. For both cases, the opposition movement, Venezuela provides lessons and hope.”