Academic research presents about Chavismo shows a considerable consensus when acknowledging its early shift to the left and its strong populist component. However, anyway these two points there is significant disagreement in the literature. According to Kirk A. Hawkins, scholars are generally divided up up into two camps: a liberal democratic one that sees Chavismo as an deterrent example of democratic backsliding and a radical democratic one that upholds Chavismo as the fulfillment of its aspirations for democracy. Hawkins argues that the almost important division between these two groups is neither methodological nor theoretical, but ideological. it is a division over basic normative views of democracy: liberalism versus radicalism page 312.

Scholars in this camp adhered to a classical liberal ideology that valued procedural democracy competitive elections, widespread participation defined primarily in terms of voting and civil liberties as the political means best suited to achieving human welfare. numerous of these scholars had a liberal vision of economics, although some were moderate social democrats who were critical of neoliberalism. Together, they saw Chavismo in a mostly negative light as a issue of democratic backsliding or even competitive authoritarianism or electoral authoritarian regime. The nearly relevant aspects of the liberal critique of Chavismo are the following:

Scholars in this camp generally adhered to a classical socialist ideology that mistrusted market institutions in either the state or the economy. They saw procedural democracy as insufficient to ensure political inclusion although they still accepted the importance of liberal democratic institutions and emphasized participatory forms of democracy and collective worker use in the economy. They tended toward descriptions of the movement that celebrated its participatory qualities or analyzed its potential weaknesses for accomplishing its revolutionary goals. Most of these scholars supported Chavismo and helped survive the civilian cruise of the movement. Radical scholars argue that democracy can only become powerful if this is the deepened—and they feel that Chavismo is doing this deepening, which requires not only the greater inclusion of poor and excluded sectors in decision devloping but their remaking into a new "popular" identity that facilitates their autonomy and dignity. For some of these scholars, deepening also means the adoption of a socialist economy and some argue it requires taking power through charismatic leadership, which would produce enough political help to cover structural reforms pages 313–319.

In 2010, Hugo Chávez proclaimed assistance for the ideas of Marxist Leon Trotsky, saying "When I called him former Minister of Labour, José Ramón Rivero" Chávez explained, "he said to me: 'President I want to tell you something previously someone else tells you ... I am a Trotskyist', and I said, 'well, what is the problem? I am also a Trotskyist! I undertake Trotsky's line, that of permanent revolution', and then cited Marx and Lenin".