Edilzon Gamez/Getty Images
Edilzon Gamez/Getty Images
This article was originally published in Review of Democracy on October 16, 2024
“Democracy is fragile. You have to fight for every law, every safeguard, every institution, every story. You must know how dangerous it is to suffer even the tiniest cut. This is why I say to us all: we must hold the line.”
― Maria Ressa, Nobel Peace Prize winner
“Venezuela is back in the news”—a phrase increasingly heard among journalists, political analysts, policymakers, and others across the globe in recent months. After years of protests, an enduring humanitarian and human rights crisis, and the forced exodus of nearly 25% of its population (7.7 million people, according to the United Nations[i]), Venezuela has also become synonymous with corruption scandals, ongoing investigations in multiple countries, and a relentless political conflict led by an unpopular authoritarian president, Nicolás Maduro. Coupled with an economy hampered by various international sanctions, Venezuela, perhaps unsurprisingly, slowly faded into what can be described as “international fatigue.” This so-called fatigue can in part be attributed to the perceived failure of various political strategies to effect change or restore democracy and is compounded by a world preoccupied with multiple crises, where violent armed conflicts have taken center stage.
I believe understanding the complexity of the current political context in Venezuela requires the analysis of two perspectives, i.e. 1. the domestic sphere, including the expressed will of the Venezuelan people; 2. the regained attention of the international community amidst diverging interests.
Yet, despite the international fatigue, Venezuela has returned to the headlines. This resurgence in attention must be understood beyond the immediate trigger: the presidential elections that took place on July 28 despite all odds and without meeting minimum democratic standards. I believe understanding the complexity of the current political context in Venezuela requires the analysis of two perspectives: 1. the domestic sphere, including the expressed will of the Venezuelan people; 2. the regained attention of the international community amidst diverging interests.
The story of Venezuela’s political situation is difficult and full of events, and a detailed chronological account goes beyond the scope of these lines. However, it’s essential to highlight at least three key facts:
In such a context, how do people resist? The common answer about Venezuelans is “they do not”. The need for survival, especially in the context of a humanitarian emergency, inevitably leads to demobilization, makes citizens passive actors and eventually conduces societies to “normalize” their political reality to make sense of their daily needs. Studies on the most extreme circumstances (wars, famines, etc.) show the capacity humans have to adapt to the harshest scenarios. Despite this common analysis, the elections of July 28th were a catalyzer to show a deeper reality: Venezuelans participated first in primary elections to choose an opposition candidate[v], organized these primary elections without state institutions, and later participated massively by voting on July 28th. In short, a seemingly “demobilized” population was politically re-energized by exercising their human rights in a country where systematic human rights violations occur regularly. When Nicolás Maduro’s government-controlled National Electoral Council declared him the winner without providing any credible evidence, Venezuelans responded by taking to the streets for several days. This led to one of the harshest waves of repression, resulting in 25 deaths and the detention of over 1,800 people.
Authoritarian regimes share a common goal: the indefinite retention of power. Yet, the determination of millions of Venezuelans managed to create a “crack” in the authoritarian wall. Despite the Maduro government’s refusal to provide evidence of its “victory,” its continued grip on power, and the forced exile of the opposition candidate, the ‘repolitization’ of Venezuelan society has demonstrated a collective commitment to democracy and a clear demand for change. As of this writing, the future remains uncertain, with Nicolás Maduro, backed by the military, clinging to power. However, the agency and resolve shown by citizens, including many who previously voted for the Bolivarian revolution, proves that Venezuelan society is still willing to mobilize and fight for political transformation.
The Venezuelan multi-crises have had diverse impacts on the international community. From the forced migration crisis to energy concerns (as Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world) and ideological polarization, interests in “solving the Venezuelan problem” vary significantly. Nicolás Maduro’s allies -Cuba, Nicaragua, and to a lesser extent, Bolivia and Honduras in the region, along with China, Iran, Turkey, and Russia on the global stage- were quick to recognize his self-declared victory. In contrast, the United States, the European Union, and most other nations, including left-wing governments such as Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil, continue to demand -to this day- the publication of voting evidence, namely the voting tallies (or “actas”, as they are known in Spanish in Venezuelan law) that should have been released at least a month ago. Consequently, they have abstained from recognizing Maduro’s claims of re-election.
What followed the Venezuelan elections was a period of intense activity after a long stretch of international fatigue. For several weeks, political leaders across the Americas shared, often through social media, updates on multiple phone calls, Zoom meetings, and diplomatic efforts aimed at pressuring Nicolás Maduro. The goal was to get him to either accept an impartial international audit of the vote (which the opposition was willing to accept), agree to new elections, or form a coalition government with the opposition. However, none of these proposals came to fruition.
Beyond Maduro’s known allies, the international community now finds itself at a crossroads. One reaction has been to openly refuse to recognize Maduro’s government, a stance that has already prompted him to sever diplomatic relations with several Latin American countries. The other option is to continue mediation efforts in hopes of restarting negotiations between the government and the opposition—a strategy favored by Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, the United States and the European Union.
The Venezuelan case highlights the fragility of democracy and the immense challenges of restoring it once it’s lost. As Filipino and American journalist, Nobel laureate Maria Ressa aptly states, “you have to fight for every law, every safeguard, every institution, every story” in the defense of democracy. Beyond the recent elections, Venezuelans have demonstrated their determination to continue this fight, despite the restrictions imposed by a repressive government. We can only hope that the international community will stand firmly behind their struggle for democracy and human rights—without double standards and with a long-term commitment to real change.
[i] R4V is the Interagency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants made up by over 200 organizations (including UN Agencies, civil society, faith-based organizations and NGOs, among others) that coordinates their efforts under Venezuela’s Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP) in 17 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. This platform offers the most updated and reliable data on the situation of migrants and refugees from Venezuela.
[ii] President Hugo Chavez came to power with the stated intention to “found/establish a new republic”. To this end, he introduced a new constitution, created new political institutions, and a new political movement and party based on strong nationalism, close partnership with the military sector (he was, after all, a military man) and an enhanced vision of the country’s independence leader, Simon Bolivar. He referred to this new political and ideological project as a revolution and, given his constant reference to Simon Bolivar, his project was then termed “Bolivarian revolution”, a term used to this day.
[iii] For further information, see: “Washington Office on Latin America: “Combatting misinformation, Venezuela’s case before the International Criminal Court” 23 July 2023, available at https://www.wola.org/analysis/combating-disinformation-venezuela-international-criminal-court/#note2.
[iv] The Venezuelan government does not publish data on social indicators. A group of Venezuelan universities have been researching and publishing the ENCOVI (Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida) to inform about the living conditions of the population. This publication has become the main source of reliable information to learn about the country’s socio-economic conditions: 82% of the population live in poverty (53% of which live in extreme poverty) and one third experiences moderate or severe food insecurity. Further information available at UCAB or OHCHR.
[v] The primary elections took place on October 22, 2023. Maria Corina Machado, a former member of parliament and leader of the “Vente” political movement, overwhelmingly won the primaries. The Maduro government illegally disqualified Machado and the Unitary Platform (a coalition of opposition parties) selected Edmundo González Urrutia to be the candidate. Until then, González Urrutia was an unknown former ambassador. In two months of political campaign, Machado traveled extensively across the country asking Venezuelans to vote for ambassador Gonzalez Urrutia since she was not allowed to run for office. This was one of the most unusual campaigns in recent history, with high levels of censorship, voters’ repression and a clear uneven playing field favoring the government’s candidate, Nicolás Maduro, running for his third consecutive term.
