In the aftermath of the Second World War, the military coup of 18 October 1945 altered the course of Venezuelan history in fundamental ways. Because of its far-reaching significance-and because its main actors continued to dominate the political scene for decades to come-the coup is surrounded by controversy. In the first place, was the October coup“democratic”? The coup's critics argue that it broke a “constitutional thread” that had extended over the decade since the end of the long dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gomez (1908-35); both President Eleazar Lopez Contreras (1936-41) and President Isaias Medina Angarita (1941 - 45) had accepted a gradual implantation of democratic structures and liberalization, while at the same time the military was removed from decision-making authority. The October coup, it is argued, thrust the military back into politics. The restlessness and activism that 18 October engendered in the armed forces would come to haunt the new government and its civilian leaders. The coup of 24 November 1948, which led to the dictatorship of General Marcos Perez Jimenez (1948-58), was spearheaded by a military clique that consisted mostly of the same officers who had conspired against Medina three years before. Thus even though 18 October was carried out in the name of democracy, in effect it set back the cause of democracy in Venezuela.

The coup's defenders deny the validity of the constitutional thread thesis. They characterize the Lopez and Medina administrations as prooligarchic and antidemocratic.