Recent political upheaval in Venezuela represents not only implications of a divided population regarding issues and government, but also the cultural and historical elements of Venezuela.  With election of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela faced challenges regarding social issues ( such as poverty, jobs, social services etc) but also the challenge of satisfying the masses.  Chavez was not elected by staggering percentages, demonstrating the large contingency of voters who did not support his ideas.  With goals of social reform ( redistribution of wealth etc), but no real articulated plan, Chavez did not gain support within the business world ( read: controllers of wealth), but did prove popular among the poor ( making up more than 1/2 of Venezuela’s population).
        This division of support and alliance is a manifestation of historical and cultural aspects.  The beginnings of democracy in Venezuela in the 1960’s proves a good example.  The rule of then president Romulo Betancourt represent how political alliances form.  Leftists groups were not included in many political agreements during this time, which led to tension.  In 1960 with the beginning of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), government established control over the oil industry.  Issues of political alliance revolve around such economic actions.  Voters support leaders who address their personal concerns.  In this way, divisions of support are historical and cultural.  Concerns of the general public are personal.  Religion for example is a cultural aspect that stems from historic foundations.  Roman Catholicism has cultural implications, and obvious historical roots. The majority of Venezuela’s population practices Roman Catholicism and lives below the poverty line.  For this, a need for leaders who at least boast promises of social reform and have respect for the national religion is important.
        It is no mystery, however, that even if this poor population represents the majority, that does not necessarily mean political control.  Historically wealthier countries/people have more opportunity, not to mention more leverage in a corrupt society/political arena.  Economic interests will be split depending on personal income.  Poor people look to economic/social reform ( by means of tax breaks, policy initiatives that benefit the poor, redistribution of wealth by means of government intervention/control surrounding business etc) despite what the wealthier may see as negative consequences for the rich.  Wealthier people will most likely react similarly, but in their best interest.  In these ways nations become divided.
         These divisions deepen with the lasting quality of history and culture.  As seen in so many examples of internal and external conflicts throughout history,( Israel/Palestine, Germany during WWII, race struggles in the US etc) division regarding identity allows for such circumstances.  Identity is a product of history and culture.  The identifiable enemy is a result of nationally or group identity. Support of issues and leaders becomes an extension of these respective identities.  In Venezuela the population divided regarding support of Chavez.  This division translated into violence, not reflecting barbarity, but the emotion, the deepness, of division as well as identity.
        The controversy surrounding Pedro Carmona ( a businessman and economist who took control after the “ousting” of Chavez) represents these issues also.  Such controversy came of this action that he resigned after only one day.  The uprising of the largely poor population who supports Chavez denied the presumably wealthy figure (Carmona) the opportunity to control the country.  Wealthy politicians in high power arguably had some involvement in the matter, representing these divisions, differences in interest and belief.
        Energy is an undeniably valuable commodity that Venezuela can capitalize on.  As tensions die down, a primary focus on economic issues would hopefully translate into social reform.  Oil seems the easiest and most efficient way for Venezuela to improve its economy.  As discussed in 2000 by Juan de Jesus Montilla ( trade minister ), increased investments would be beneficial for Venezuela. However, this would mean educating the population more about such opportunities.  The divisions within Venezuela  ( and the seeming lack of stability ) have translated into a situation that calls for government action.
    Venezuela’s history and culture contribute to the hardships the country is suffering today due to divisions among its people. This manifestation is not only logical, but wide spread.  Issues that transcend clean cut figures and solutions have so many implications it proves difficult to hypothesize about possible solutions.  It seems likely that controversy will continue as will corruption and division.  Further development of the economy through trade etc. seems the best way to alleviate tensions and perhaps lessen the sharpness of divisions.