Twitter and Institutional Change

Insights from Populist and Pluralist Discourses in Venezuela

Résumé

Should we take tweets from politicians seriously? This paper argues that tweets sent out from the accounts of the top political actors are important because they are framed within a worldview that looks to support or challenge the legitimacy of an institutional order. As Twitter provides a direct connection between the speaker and mass audiences, it offers political leaders a platform to articulate a worldview, justify democratic or undemocratic strategies for competition, and mobilize support across frontiers to influence the perception of power structures. The relationship between discourse and institutional legitimacy is especially important in systems like Venezuela’s where authoritarian and democratic practices coexist, meaning that the legitimacy of institutions largely depends on the agency of key actors in influencing the perception of what is considered to be democratic. Therefore, this study carries out a content analysis of the tweets of the opposition and incumbent Venezuelan leaders. The results show that the incumbent’s discourse was predominantly framed within a populist worldview, which perceives politics as a zero-sum struggle between the people and a conspiring global elite, such that the incumbent’s infringements on democratic procedures were justified as an effort for emancipation from global oppressors. The opposition articulated a pluralist discourse that defended electoral competition, understood as the way to resolve the various interests and goals of a heterogeneous society, and therefore resorted to democratic strategies to challenge the incumbent’s power. Given the unprecedented reach of social media, this study highlights the extent to which Twitter contributes to materialize an interpretation of power structures, and how political elites use it to influence the legitimacy of an institutional order.