Risks that the elections in Venezuela could lead to a regional crisis

lVenezuela’s democracy crisis remains a matter of concern for the region, The international community was pressing for a date for presidential elections to be held this year. And, although this was achieved, the conditions are not entirely “fair or free”, since a week ago the opposition was prevented from nominating its own candidate and, on the contrary, accepted what the regime wanted. I went.

As well as asking for a date, the request, which was partly reflected in the Barbados Agreement, was signed between the opposition and the government in October 2023 under the mediation and cooperation of Norway. usaThe authority of potential presidential candidates was added, such as the case Maria Corina MachadOr, who the people chose to face in the primaries Nicolas Maduro.

The only thing that was accomplished was the definition of the date set for July 28. Among the rest, the world saw how on March 25, at 11:57 pm, the Fuerza Vaccinal and Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT) party registered to the governor of Zulia, Manuel Rosales, the impossibility of nominating Machado’s standard bearer Corina Yorris. Given and in principle it would also be registered by the UNT and the Democratic Unity Roundtable, which was forced to insert the name of Edmundo González in the eight-hour extension, “so that the position does not remain vacant,” they told him. EL TIEMPO A source.

The intention in registering González was that, during the replacement process, which should begin in early April, changes could be made and Yoris could be introduced, but Chavismo’s number two is god given hairGave punishment.

“They can support those who are already nominated, read the law, sorry, gentleman opponents. Support Maduro because (…) you have 13 candidates to choose from,” Cabello said, meaning replacements can only be made with those already registered.

What does this all mean for the region?

Under these circumstances, the outlook appears favorable for the re-election of Nicolas Maduro for the period 2025–2030. Rosales’ inscription is described by Machado as “Betrayal”, and unless the opposition supports candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Despite the fact that surveys like Dataanalysis assure that 70 percent of the population wants political change, there are few alternatives to the opposition.

Faced with this situation, Venezuela’s main allies, Colombia and Brazil, issued unexpected statements questioning the undemocratic processes, causing tension between the three countries.

“Right-wing governments and cowardly leftists are not able to condemn coups or maneuvers that threaten peace. They remain silent by colluding,” said Maduro, who claims they have tried to kill him in recent months. The president said Venta Venezuela, the movement of disenfranchised María Corina Machado, was “terrorist”.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro responded in the X: “There is no cowardice left, there is, through deepening democracy, the possibility of changing the world. Chávez’s magic was to offer democracy and change to the world. Today’s revolution is: changing the world by strengthening democracy.”

But how dare Petro point out Maduro? For Venezuelan political scientist Ángel Medina, beyond the “friendship” that exists between the leaders, Maduro, faced with the dilemma of maintaining power or rejoining the international community that Petro helped create, would prefer to remain in the presidency. Because being accepted in the region requires commitments and democratic values ​​that it is unwilling to meet.

“That’s why there are short circuits with Lula and Petro, because it is in his best interest for Maduro to re-establish himself in Venezuela to create stability, which means less migration, more commercial exchanges. And a strong regional security plan,” Medina explains. on time.

But Medina is also realistic and assures that, although the international community is “concerned about Venezuela”, at the moment there is a major crisis of global governance, evident in conflicts such as Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Hamas. “In Russia, Putin won without any opposition and nothing happened,” he said.

To vote or not to vote?

Years have shown that not voting in Venezuela was the worst decision, because it allowed Chavismo to cover all the places and now it is difficult to recover them. The last competitive elections in the country could be said to have taken place in 2015, when the opposition won Parliament and Chavismo, demoralized, preferred to establish a parallel assembly. And did not return to their seats.

Since then, the opposition has relied on the international community. This led to the 2018 elections, in which Maduro won, which the parliament declared illegitimate and therefore justified a power vacuum, which ended with Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as president, beginning an interim government. , 60 countries recognized it and the US increased sanctions. on the country, but none of them worked to displace Maduro.

The Biden administration has already spoken about how these elections will be held. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller warned, “The CNE’s acceptance of only those opposition candidates with whom Maduro and his representatives feel comfortable runs counter to competitive and inclusive elections.”

In response, Venezuela said that the United States was trying to ignore and delegitimize the presidential elections to be held on July 28.

For Medina, abstinence is not an option at this time. Luis Vicente León, director of a dataanalysis firm, thinks so, but believes the risks lie in a lack of motivation amid what has happened with his leadership choices. “The government clearly encourages doing this,” León tells EL Tiempo.

Lyon says the rift that could arise in the opposition makes the vote likely to be rejected, but “It is important to say that the situation is driven by a strong desire for change, about 70 percent, and by learning about past experiences of abstinence”,

For the analyst, past negative experiences represent an opportunity as voting intention is higher than in 2018 and makes it “more difficult” for the government to achieve a strategy of abstention.