From Demonization to Polarization: Venezuela’s Digital Political Discourse

What is it?

This article explains how Venezuelan political leaders use Twitter to foster polarization and demonize opponents. Based on research by Romero-Rodríguez, Gadea, and Aguaded, the study analyzes 600 tweets from key figures of both the government and opposition, identifying how discursive violence and symbolic exclusion are enacted in digital spaces.

Why is it important?

The main findings reveal that Venezuela’s political conflict is mirrored and intensified online. Leaders from both camps employ strategies of demonization, othering, and belligerent rhetoric, turning Twitter into a battlefield for ideological supremacy and social control.

How is it applied?

Using content analysis and interpretative coding in Atlas.ti, tweets were categorized as polarizing or integrative based on their language, tone, and political function. The method unveils how digital communication is strategically used to manipulate public opinion and discredit dissent.

Key Findings on Polarization and Discursive Strategies

1. Dominance of Polarizing Rhetoric

• Of 600 tweets analyzed, 214 (66.6%) were polarizing, compared to only 107 integrative.

• Government figures used more polarizing language (71.6%) than opposition leaders (61.6%).

• Most frequent tactic: militarized terms like “battle”, “defend”, “offensive”, “defeat”.

2. Us vs. Them Binary

• Leaders often framed messages with “nostredad” (us) vs. “otredad” (them) language.

• Terms like “they” referred to opponents in a demonizing or dismissive tone.

• Example tweets: “Our fight is to win”, “Not voting is voting for them”.

3. Lack of Dialogic Tone

• No instances of mutual recognition or calls for dialogue were found.

• Tweets either ignored the opposition or attacked their legitimacy and morality.

• Even messages about peace were framed within polarized discourses.

FAQs

What is “nostredad” vs. “otredad”?
“Nostredad” refers to constructing a collective “us”, while “otredad” signifies “them”—the demonized, excluded group.

Does this happen on both sides?
Yes. Both government and opposition leaders employ similar discursive tactics, though the intensity and frequency vary.

Why is this dangerous?
Such rhetoric deepens societal divisions, legitimizes symbolic and physical violence, and hinders democratic coexistence.

Final Thoughts

This study confirms that Venezuela’s digital public sphere is not neutral—it’s a stage for rhetorical combat. Through discursive demonization, political leaders reinforce polarization, hinder reconciliation, and contribute to a climate of symbolic violence.

As the authors argue, Twitter is not just a platform for expression, but a tool for political control and social fragmentation. Understanding this dynamic is essential to fostering media literacy, critical thinking, and resilient democratic dialogue.