Before diving into the victory of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela’s presidential elections for the third consecutive time, let’s quickly examine the statements from three regional presidents:
“Congratulations to the Venezuelan people and President Nicolás Maduro on the electoral victory of this historic July 28. A great way to remember Commander Hugo Chávez. We closely followed this democratic celebration and are pleased that the will of the Venezuelan people at the polls has been respected. We reaffirm our desire to continue strengthening our ties of friendship, cooperation, and solidarity with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in the framework of the sovereign integration of our peoples and the common goal of advancing toward a multipolar world.” Luis Arce, President of Bolivia
“The Maduro regime must understand that the results it publishes are hard to believe. The international community and especially the Venezuelan people, including the millions of Venezuelans in exile, demand full transparency of the records and the process, and that international observers not aligned with the government verify the authenticity of the results. From Chile, we will not recognize any result that is not verifiable.” Gabriel Boric, President of Chile
“DICTATOR MADURO, OUT!!!
The Venezuelans have chosen to end Nicolás Maduro’s communist dictatorship. The data announces a crushing victory for the opposition, and the world awaits him to acknowledge defeat after years of socialism, misery, decay, and death.
Argentina will not recognize another fraud and expects the Armed Forces to defend democracy and the popular will this time. Freedom Advances in Latin America.” Javier Milei, President of Argentina
***
Of the three statements, Milei’s is undoubtedly the most vulgar. More than that, by calling on the Venezuelan Armed Forces to interfere in the political process, he adopts an odiously coup-plotting tone. The Latin far-right has this schizophrenic trait of loudly proclaiming democracy while simultaneously working to destroy it whenever democracy doesn’t suit them. It’s an authoritarian commentary in every sense, historically, form-wise, and content-wise.
Boric’s statement, on the other hand, reflects a sadly servile posture to US geopolitical interests. However, I always advocate for the left to exercise care and tolerance towards Boric because I believe his stances reflect a power correlation within Chile itself, where conservative sectors are very aggressive and strong, and only remain neutralized, out of power, because Boric has managed to keep them divided. His strategy is precisely to pose as the “good boy,” especially on international issues, trying to please these reactionary middle-class sectors, which have constituted, since the 1950s, the traditional mob for coups throughout Latin America.
President Luis Arce of Bolivia, however, had the most dignified and correct attitude, which is to fully respect the democratic process in Venezuela, whose central electoral institution has already declared Nicolás Maduro’s victory.
Naturally, the process is not over yet. Given the reactions of the Venezuelan opposition, which did not accept the result, adopting a loud “fraud” rhetoric, and the immediate adherence of the US, via Anthony Blinken, to the discourse casting doubt on the process’s integrity, it’s clear the country will have to overcome another series of political, internal and external obstacles before it can effectively celebrate its victory.
In Brazil, the debate about Venezuela remains heavily contaminated by the influence of the US and traditional media outlets, which have historically kowtowed to imperial interests. This media has long managed to poison Brazilian public opinion, including (I would even say especially) many intellectual sectors, regarding the Venezuelan issue. This is almost a lost battle in the Brazilian political debate, and for that very reason, it constitutes an extremely sensitive and even dangerous point for the left and Lula’s government.
Here too, great care, patience, and tolerance are needed, to ensure the political crisis in Venezuela is not imported into Brazil, which would prevent us from helping our neighbor and ourselves. The last thing we need right now is a political crisis in Brazil triggered by the Maduro government’s crisis.
The most mature and prudent attitude of the left and the government will be to wait for the moment of frustration and hysteria to pass, from those who genuinely believed in the victory of the Venezuelan opposition, without engaging in unnecessary clashes. This is why President Lula is waiting for Celso Amorim’s return, who went to Venezuela to closely monitor the process, to hear his report and decide on the best strategy.
The so-called “chorus espernandis” is a sacred right of the losers. Let them cry freely, without being disturbed.
It is incumbent on the winners to adopt a posture of magnanimity.
I say this because I am concerned about the bellicose, knife-in-teeth attitude of a significant sector of the left, dealing harshly with everyone who adopts a more critical stance towards the Venezuelan regime and how the elections were conducted.
The Brazilian left needs to be extremely strategic, as we still have many challenges to overcome here in the second semester. The most dangerous will be, naturally, reaching an agreement with the political center on Arthur Lira’s succession. To finish the term without upheavals and ensure his re-election, Lula will need a Speaker of the House committed to democracy and governability. It can’t be a hardcore Bolsonarist, and at the same time, it needs to be someone with enough political skill not to push the center and liberal right towards the far-right.
Moreover, the Venezuela issue will pass (and hopefully, the country will normalize), and we will need everyone—Boric, Arce, democratic liberals, the moderate left, the political center, as well as the entire Brazilian and Latin American left—in this gigantic challenge of promoting sustainable and inclusive economic development in our continent. We can’t afford to burn bridges with anyone!
Regarding the Venezuelan process itself, my opinion is simple and straightforward: respect the country’s sovereignty and the decision of its institutions. The assertion that Venezuela’s electoral council is “controlled by Maduro,” and therefore willing to commit fraud, does not seem serious, ethical, or democratic to me. When participating in an electoral process, it implies agreeing with its integrity. Otherwise, the complaint must be made before, not after. It is very irresponsible to participate in an election and celebrate in case of victory and accuse fraud in case of defeat.
In any case, there are international observers, and over the next hours and days, we will have more details about the cleanliness of the Venezuelan electoral process. Naturally, no political group, left or right, should be lenient with electoral fraud, but fraud must be denounced with conclusive evidence.
No one is asking to approve Maduro’s government or like the Venezuelan regime. But it’s an independent country with a politicized society, perfectly capable of solving its own problems.
Moreover, any analysis of Venezuela’s political conflicts and economic difficulties that does not consider the devastating impact of unilateral, criminal, deeply undemocratic US sanctions does not seem honest to me.
Brazil needs to advocate for the end of sanctions on Venezuela, the sovereignty and self-determination of its people, and work to help it overcome its crises, because a stable South America, capable of developing economically and technologically, will be crucial for Brazil’s future, besides being an important contribution to a more balanced and peaceful multipolar world.
