Moreover, countries that are labeled as hybrid regimes are known to be in a grey zone between a democratic and authoritarian regime. However, Venezuela leans more towards a competitive authoritarianism because of its policies that favor the incumbent, which has been done through the abuse from the state by resources, harassments, and coercions. In the rise of competitive authoritarianism it states, “Although elections are regularly held and are generally free of massive fraud, incumbents routinely abuse state resources, deny the opposition adequate media coverage, harass opposition candidates and their supporters, and in some cases manipulate electoral results” (Levitsky and Way 2002, 53). Additionally, in a competitive authoritarianism presidents are more concerned in gaining political authority even at the cost of taking away democratic liberties. Another characteristic of competitive authoritarianism Venezuela government had under Chavez is that he used manipulative tactics to secure his incumbency such as placing opposition leaders in jail like Leopoldo Lopez thus the country did not hold free and fair …show more content…
An example of this behavior can be witnessed in 2004 during a recall petition, “The lista was deliberately employs to induce citizens to withdraw their signatures or else face job termination and denial of access to public contracts and social benefits” (Corrales and Penfold 2011, 367). The Venezuelan government blatantly violated the right to privacy of citizens to vote by posting the names of the individuals online and installed fear to those who opposed the Chavez government by ensuring a penalty if they do not remove their signature. Furthermore, the regime became even stricter in 2006; “The regime grew increasingly authoritarian after 2006. Several leading opposition figures were arrested (for example ex-governor Oswaldo A ́ lvarez Paz) or forced into exile (for example 2006 presidential candidate Manuel Rosales. . .” (Levitsky and Loxton 2013,